IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


V 


^ 


/. 


/ 


<^  C<'. 


s 


\.  '^° 


C/u 


y. 


1.0 


s^.'  llllM 


I.I 


JfrilM  iiiiM 

" '  =  Ilia 

1.8 


1.25      1.4 

1.6 

-4 

6"     — 

► 

p 


/i 


/^ 


V^        c>^ 


%..  v* 


-r^.V 


o 


/. 


/ 


/A 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


V 


S 


^^ 


<P 


o 


*% 


V 


^ 


6^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


^^V 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CiHM/ICIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibllographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 
D 

n 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagde 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurde  et/ou  pellicul6e 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


□    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


D 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intirieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajcuiSes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  Atait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  filmites. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppldmentaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  M  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  una 
modification  dans  la  mithode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu6s  ci-dessous. 


D 
D 
D 
□ 


D 
D 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagdes 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaur6es  et/ou  pelliculdes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachetdes  ou  piqu^es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tachdes 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 


I      I    Quality  of  print  varies/ 


Quality  indgale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 


Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  film^es  d  nouveau  de  fapon  A 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmd  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu6  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


26X 


30X 


y 

12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


2IX 


32X 


[ails 
du 

}difier 
une 
nage 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Library  of  the  Public 
Archives  of  Canada 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


L'exemplaire  film6  fut  reproduit  grfice  d  la 
g6n6ro8it6  de: 

La  bibliothdque  des  Archives 
publiques  du  Canada 

Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  l'exemplaire  film6,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimde  sont  film6s  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmds  en  commenpant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — ^^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED "),  or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END  "), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboleft  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  ^^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbole  y  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filcnis  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffdrents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  §tre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichd,  il  est  film6  d  partir 
de  I'angie  sup6rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  6  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mithode. 


rrata 
;o 


pelure, 
1  A 


□ 


32X 


t  2  3 


\     ^ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

50th  C' 
1st  S> 


May 


Mr.  Enm 


lO.VTIH':  T 
lililTALV 
OF  ()VT( 
WHICH,  ' 
SCJUKUT 
IN  CONFJ 

I  fk  Comim 
i)f  the  Pi 
iniftiiiff  a 
mwernin 
>ii(jn€(l  at 

That  it  Ij 

fiiiisi(lerati( 

"III  tor  iu 

fi'solution  o 

As  prt'Iiiii 
i  various  a 

It'  of  the 
'tilt'  intent 
I"*  of  XortL 
[Before  the 
Aineri 
'flit' coasts 
pw,|)res(!rii 
pluliou  an 
^'•etweenti 

i'''''"!  that,  til 
I" '» tak(!  /ish 
r'liKllfin.I ;  n 
r""^'"lial»ii 


50TH  Congress, 
Id  Session. 


SENATE. 


Mis.  Doo. 
No.  109. 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


May  to,  1888.— Injunction  of  secrecy  removed  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

May  7,  1H88. 

Mr.  Kdmttnds,  from  the  (Jommittoo  on  Foroijjn   Ueliitions,  siilunittwl 

the  following 

REPORT  (Executive  No.  3) 

ONTIIK  TREATY  (EX.  M.)  HETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT 
liKITAIN,  CONCERNING  THE  INTERI'RKTATION  OK  TIFE  CONVKNTION 
OF  OCTOBER  20,  1818,  SIGNED  AT  WASHINGTON  FKHRUAUY  l.'.,  IHHH; 
WHICH,  TOGETHER  WITH  THE  VIEWS  OF  THE  MINORITY  ON  THiC  SAME 
•^lliJEUT,  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  MORGAN,  WAS  ORDERED  TO  BE  I'JilNTED 
IX  CONFIDENCE  FOR  THE  USE  OF  THE  SENATE. 

\Ue  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  to  which  teas  referred  the  mexsnye 
»/  the  President  of  the  United  Htates  of  the  Wth  Fehrtiury  last,  trans- 
muting a  proposed  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  (heat  Britain 
mcerning  the  interpretation  of  the  convention  of  the  20th  October,  1818, 
mjned  at  Washington  February  iry,  1888,  respectfully  reports : 

That  it  hao  had  the  said  pro[)08ed  treaty  under  careful  and  deliberate 
iisideration  and  that  it  returns  heiewitli  a  resolution  in  the  ordinary 
|)iiii  for  its  ratification,  with  the  expression  of  its  opinion  that  said 
I'solntion  ought  not  to  be  adopted. 

As  preliiriinary  to  a  consideration  of  the  text  of  the  treaty  itself  in 

i  Viirious  aspects,  the  committee  thinks  it  proper  to  give  a  brief  rd- 

w  of  the  history  of  the  fisheries  question  and  o(  her  matters  relating 

I  the  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  the  British  domin- 

i)f  Xorth  America  having  more  or  less  relation  thereto. 
[Before  the  Revolution  the  inhabitant^  of  all  the  British  colonies  in 
joitli  America  possessed,  as  a  common  right,  the  right  of  fishing  on 
itlio  coasts  of  British  North  America,  and  these  rights  were,  in  a  broad 
|iise,i)n',scriptiveand  accustomed  rights  of  property.  At  the  end  of  the 
ptliUion  and  by  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  which  adjusted  the  bounda- 
flii'tween  the  dominions  of  the  two  powers,  it  was  (Article  111) — 

boi'd  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  shall  continue  to  enjoy  unmolested  the 
|t  to  take  lish  of  every  kind  on  the  Grand  Bank  and  on  all  th»^  other  banks  of 
r'niiidland ;  al.so  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  at  all  other  places  in  the  sea 
If'tlie  inliabitanta  of  both  countries  used  at  any  time  heretofore  to  fish,  and  also 


ii:.^ :, 


THE    FISHERIES   TREATY. 


that  the  inhabitaiitH  of  the  United  States  shall  have  liberty  to  take  fish  of  every  kiinl 
on  sucli  part  of  the  coa«t  of  Newfoundland  as  British  fishermen  shall  use  (lint  'mt  to 
dry  or  cure  tlie  same  on  that  island),  and  also  on  the  coasts,  bays,  and  crocks  ni  n\\ 
otluir  of  His  Britannic  Majesty's  dominions  iu  America. 

This  was  a  grant  or  recognition  of  a  property  right  agreed  iiixm  on,., 
consideration,  viz,  the  adjustment  of  the  boundaries  and  the  otlici  {% 
giigenients  into  which  the  United  States  by  that  treaty  entere<l.    As  to! 
the  open-sea  fishing,  it  was  merely  a  recognition  of  a  right  coinmon  toi 
all  nations,  and  as  to  the  fishing  within  the  municipal  dominion  of  Hj, 
Majesty  on  his  coasts,  bays,  and  creeks,  it  was  an  agreement  thiit  rlusfl 
rights  theretofore  existing  in  all  British  subjects  should  of  right  belong 
to  those  British  subjects  who,  by  force  of  the  revolution,  had  l)ec()ni^ 
tiie  citizens  of  an  independent  nation  ;  and  thus  it  was,  in  the  piirfition 
of  the  territory,  a  reservation  in  favor  of  the  people  of  the  United  State 
of  a  right  which  they,  as  British  subjects,  had  theretofore  lawfii 
enjoyed. 

From  1783  until  the  war  of  1812  between  the  two  countries  citizciij 
of  the  United  States  continued  to  enjoy  the  ancient  rights  b('loii;j;iii| 
to  them  as  subjects  of  Great  Britain  before  the  Revolution  and  resent 
to  them  as  citizens  of  the  United  States  after  it,  with  the  full  tivt'dol 
secured  by  the  article  last  referred  to.     During  this  period  of  tiiu| 
other  subjects  of    ditference  and  negotiation  arose  between  tlic  [ii 
countries,  which  were  disi)08ed  of  by  the  treaties  of  1794,  with  itsej 
plaiiatoiy  articles,  and  of  1802;  but  the  fishery  provision  of  ITSieoi 
tinnedto  exist  unquestioned  and  apparently  as  having  been,  as  it  plainl 
pnrporte<i  to  be,  a  treaty  ilisposing  of  and  adjusting  proj)ert.v  iij;l^ 
which  had  become  by  foice  of  its  own  oi)eration  an  executcid  coiitnii 

The  treaty  of  peace  concluded  ou  December  2^,  1814,  at  tlio  close] 
the  war  of  1812,  provided: 

First,  for  a  restoration  to  each  party  of  all  countries,  tenitorios, <'i 
taken  by  either  party  during  the  war,  witliout  delay,  saving  soiikmi 
tions  of  islands  in  the  bay  of*Passamaqoddy. 

Secondly,  it  provided  for  disposition  of  prizes  and  prisoners  of  waij 

Thirdly,  it  provided  for  questions  of  boundary  and  dominion  rc;'aj 
ing  certain  islands  and  for  the  settlement  of  the  northeiistern  boiiiidi 
and  also  for  the  northwestern  boundary,  etc.     It  made  no  rofciej 
what(iver  to  ?iny  question  touching  the  fisheries  mentioned  in  the 
of  1783. 

The  commercial  treaty  corududed  on  the  3d  of  July,  18(,"),  hotwccii 
two  countries  provi<led  for  reciprocal  liberty  of  commerce  ImMwioiJ 


THE    FIISHEUIKS    TUEATY. 


3 


tlie  territories  of  Groat  Britain  !n  Eumpc  and  tlie  territories  of  the 
United  States,  but  left  without  any  new  treaty  stipnhition  or  obligation 
oomniercial  intereonrse  between  British  doniinioiis  in  North  America 
aiul  the  United  States  reniaininjif  under  the  exelusivo  control  of  each. 
But  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaties  follow inj;-  the  war  of  1812, 
tliere  being  then  no  treaty  obligations  or  reciprocal  laws  in  force  be- 
tween or  in  either  of  the  countries  respecting  coniniercial  intercourse, 
the  Ibitish  Government  set  up  the  pretension  tliat  the  lishing  rights 
recognized  and  secured  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  the  treaty 
of  ITSii  had  become  abrogated  in  consequence  of  the  war  of  1812, 
which,  on  the  i)rinciple  of  the  war  annulling  all  unexecuted  engage- 
iiieuts  between  the  two  belligerents,  it  was  contended,  annulled  the 
lishing  rights  described  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  that  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  had,  therefore,  no  longer  the  right  to  fish  in  any  of 
the  British  North  American  waters.  This  pretension  led  to  the  con- 
clusion of  the  treaty  of  the  20th  October,  1818,  the  lisheries  article  of 
whicli  provided  that  (Article  I) — 

Wliereas  ditteioucca  Lave  arisen  respectiiiji,'  the  liberty,  chiiuicd  by  tlie  United 
States,  for  the  inhabitants  thereof,  to  take,  dry,  and  cnro  lish  on  certain  coasts,  bays, 
harbors,  and  creeks  of  ilis  Britannic  ^lajcsty's  dominions  in  America,  it  is  ayreed  be-» 
nvec'ii  the  hifih  contraetins  parties  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  United  .States 
>liall  have  forever,  in  common  with  the  subjects  of  Ilis  Uritannic  Majesty,  the  liberty 
til  take  iish  of  every  kind  on  that  part  of  the  southern  coast  of  Newfoundland  which 
cxtenils  from  Capo  Kay  to  the  Kanieau  Islands;  on  tlie  western  and  northern  coast  of 
Xcwfoniidland  from  the  said  Cape  Ray  to  the  Qnir])on  Isla^nds,  on  the  shores  of  the 
Ma^ilalen  Islands,  and  also  on  the  coasts,  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks,  from  Mount  Joly, 
on  the  southern  coast  of  Labrador,  to  and  through  the  Straits  of  Belle  Isle,  and 
thence  northwardly  indednitely  along  the  coast,  withont  iirejudice,  however,  to  any 
of  the  exclusive  rights  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company :  And  that  the  American  (ish- 
einiea  shall  also  have  liberty  forever  to  dry  and  euro  fish  in  any  of  the  unsettled 
h;iys,  harbors,  and  creeks,  of  the  southern  ))art  of  the  coast  of  Newfonndland,  above 
described,  and  of  the  coast  of  Labrador ;  but  so  soon  as  the  same,  or  any  portion  there- 
of, shall  be  settled,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  said  tishermen  to  dry  or  cure  fish  at  such 
portion  so  settled  withont  previous  agreement  for  snch  purpose  with  the  inhabitants, 
liroiirictors,  or  possessors  of  the  ground.  And  the  United  States  hereby  renounce  for- 
ever any  liberty  heretofore  enjoyed  or  claimed  by  the  inhabitants  thereof  to  take,  dry, 
or  cure  iish  on  or  within  three  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts,  b.-^ys,  creeks,  or 
liiiibois  of  His  Britannic  Majesty's  dominions  in  America  not  included  within  the 
ahovo-meutioned  limits:  Vvovided,  however,  That  the  American  fishermen  shall  be  ad- 
mitted to  enter  such  bays  or  harbors  for  the  purpose  of  shelter  and  of  repairing  dam- 
I  ages  therein,  of  purchasing  wood,  and  of  obtaining  water,  and  for  no  other  purpose 
whatever.  But  they  shall  be  under  such  restrictions  as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent 
their  taking,  drying,  or  curing  fish  therein,  or  in  any  other  manner  whatever  abusing 
tlie  jirvileges  hereby  reserved  to  them. 


I  1/ 


¥■'■  '■*l:' 

MM 
iirJi 


■:  i;i.!i,f| 


^'M'l 

i 

lUiii 

; 

n 

i  ; 

J  ' 

H 

-J- 

m 

THE    FISHKKIES    TKKATY. 


This  arrangement  divided,  and  limited  in  territorial  extent,  tin*  fislijnir 
rights  of  the  jjeople  of  the  United  States,  that  had  existed  while  they 
were  British  subjects  and  had  been  recognized  and  existetl  under  the 
treaty  of  peace  of  1783  until  the  Avar  of  1.S12,  and  it  provided  for  a  con. 
tinuance  of  the  ancient  rights  of  fishing  on  certain  named  parts  (•!'  tlie 
coasts  of  British  North  America,  and  its  islands,  and  in  their  bays,  Imi. 
bors,  and  creeks,  etc.  It  also  provided  for  a  renunciation  by  the  I  iiittMl 
States  of  pre  existing  rights  to  take  tlsh,  etc.,  "within  3  marine  miles 
of  any  of  the  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors"  of  His  ^Majesty's  do. 
minions  in  British  North  America,  not  included  within  the  previously- 
mentioned  limits,  but  with  a  proviso,  as  a  reservation  ni>on  the  romui- 
elation  of  the  right  to  fish,  that  the — 

American  tisheniien  nhall  be  admitted  to  enter  sneli  liays  or  harbors  for  the  [im-. 
poses  of  shelter  and  of  repairnig  damageH  tlien-in,  of  inin.liasin^r  wood,  jiihI  (if  ob- 
taining water,  and  for  no  other  pnriwaes  whatever.  I5iit  they  shall  be  nudir  siicli 
restrictions  as  may  be  necessary  to  i)revent  their  taking,  drying,  or  coring  lisli  there- 
in, or  in  any  other  manner  whatever  abnsing  the  privileges  hereby  reserved  to  tlii'iu. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  ancient  right  continued  in  all  its  force  in 
every  bay,  harbor,  and  creek  of  a  described  territory,  aiul  that  the  w- 
•nunciatioii  of  the  right  to  fish  on  other  coasts,  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks 
is  in  the  same  language,  aiul  is  perfectly  correlative  to  the  tirst,  and 
that  the  line  of  British  municipal  dominion  was  recognized  and  staled 
to  be  a  line  3  marine  miles  from  these  British  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  and 
harbors,  and  that  this  renunciation  was,  both  in  substance  and  form,  a 
renunciation  only  of  a  right  to  fish  and  to  exercise  the  incidents  ot'tliej 
fishing,  as  drying,  etc.,  and  that  the  proviso  to  that  renunciation  admitted 
the  American  fishermen  to  enter  such  wafers,  bays,  and  harbors  fori 
the  si)ecific  i)urposes  necessary  to  them  in  their  character  as  fisherineiij 
only,  and  not  having  the  slightest  reference,  either  expressly  or  l)y  iiu| 
l)lication,  to  auy  fishim/  or  other  vessel  of  the  United  States  and  sailiii;' 
under  their  flag,  entering  any  port  of  His  Majesty's  dominions  anywhorej 
for  any  commercial  or  trading  purpose.  And  these  entries  into  exdi 
sively^British  fishing  waters  fishing  vessels  (the  only  ones  entitled  ti^ 
be  there  at  all)  were  to  be  under  such  restrictions,  and  such  oiiIy,d 
should  be  necessary-  to  prevent  their  exercising  the  fishing  rights  tliii| 
had  been  renounced  and  abusing  the  privileges  of  such  entry  soi 
served;  that  is,  by  doing  the  renounced  thing,  viz,  the  taking  aiiiUiirJ 
ing  of  fish,  or  violating  the  British  laws  excluding  all  American  trading 
vessels. 


THE    FISHKUIES   TREATY, 


)V  the  \mv- 
i\u\  of  ol)- 
\w\vv  Sllfll 
r  fish  tliHie- 
od  t(i  them. 

its  force  in 

lat  tliert'- 

aiul  cveeks 

L>  tirst,  i\ih1 

iiud  staU'il 
•voeks,  i\iul 
tiul  fovm,  '\ 
[eiits  of  tlie 

kn  admitted 

Ihurlnns  tut 
s  lisliermeii 
\\y  ov  by  ilU' 
ami  »A\\wi 
lis  auywlK-'«| 
L  into  i'xcln- 
]s  entitloil  t( 
Ineli  only.iii 
riyjlitstiw] 

|i  eutvy  so 
l-ingaiuUMl 
Iricau  ti-uim 


It  is  to  be  kept  clearly  i"  view  tliat  at  the  time  of  the  conclusion  of 
this  treaty  of  1S18,  and  for  twelve  years  afterward,  no  American  vessel 
liiul  any  right  to  enter  any  port  of  British  North  America,  with  the 
few  exceptions  named  in  the  mutnal  arrangements  of  1820  and  1823. 
liercmafter  stated.  The  treaty  of  1815  and  the  Britisli  laws  and  policy 
reserved  the  whole  trade  and  intercourse  with  the  ports  of  these  colonies 
to  lier  own  vessels,  and,  reciprocally,  there  was  no  law  or  treaty  of  the 
United  States  which  authorized  the  entry  into  i)orts  (with  the  excep- 
tions stated)  of  the  United  States  of  British  vessels  from  Britisli  North 
American  ports. 

Thus  it  was  that  the  treaty  of  1818  omitted  to  make  any  mention  of 
tlie  ports  in  the  British  provinces  in  connection  with  the  arrival  or  de- 
parture of  American  vessels,  either  lishing  or  other,  and  so  it  was  a  clear 
aud  necessary  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1818  that  the  arrangements, 
conditions,  and  renunciations  therein  provided  had  no  relation,  one 
way  or  the  other,  to  the  exercise  of  what  nmy  be  called  commercial 
rights  by  the  American  lishiug  or  other  vessels  in  the  waters  or  ports 
of  British  North  America,  for  the  .status  of  things  was  such,  that  it 
could  not  be  done  in  the  case  oi  any  American  vessel  without  regard  to 
lier  cliaracter  as  a  vessel  engaged  in  lishing  upon  the  high  seas  or  in 
the  British  teiTitorial  waters,  wherein,  as  was  i)rovided,  she  might  con- 
tinue to  lish,  or  to  her  commercial  character. 

The  right  (except  in  the  cases  before  stated)  of  the  British  toexclude 
such  vessels  and  all  others  of  the  United  States  from  her  ports  in  Brit- 
isli North  America,  as  the  matter  stood  until  1830,  is  fully  conceded, 
ami  it  is  also  c(!nceded  that  during  that  time  the  only  right  of  any  ves- 
|.sel  of  the  United  States  to  enter  the  waters  of  British  North  America 
[depended  upon  the  treaty  of  1818  alone,  and  in  order  to  obtain  the 
leuetit  of  that  treaty  for  such  purposes,  the  American, vessel  must 
lave  been  a  fishing  vessel,  and  must  have  resorted  to  those  particular 
aters  for  some  one  of  the  i)urpose8  mentioned  in  the  treaty,  and  no 
itliers. 

The  foregoing  statement  is,  of  course,  subject  to  the  limitation  ini- 

|lied  in  whatever  rights  might  have  existed  by  the  geiieral  law  of  na- 

ions  ill  respect  of  vessels  under  circumstances  requiring  the  exercise 

humanity,  etc.    It  must  be  also  remarked  that  at  the  time  of  the 

inclusion  of  the  treaty  of  1818  the  ports  of  British  North  America 

[ere  very  few  aud  far  between,  and  that  there  could  be  very  little  mo- 

e  for  American  vessels,  either  fishing  or  other,  to  resort  to  such  ports 


f:yk,:t\ 


m 


6 


TiiK  risiiKiiiKs  Tin'wvrv 


for  tlio  piirposcN  of  \viu\o  until  tlu^  iSiitisli  coloniiil  ])()li(;,v  should  lim,. 
lu'cn  sibniuloiMMl  or  very  liirj;(>Iy  inodilU'd. 

Tlic  niattcr,  then,  uiidcr  tlic  trt'sity  of  ISIS  was  it  very  .simp''' "in 
niid  can  lie  rcstatcil  thus: 

(1)  No  Auicricaii  vessel  had  any  rij;ht  to  resort  to  IJritish  Ndith 
Ainerieau  ports  lor  any  «;oinnu'reial  or  other  purpose,  and  no  r.iitish 
N«)rth  Anieriean  vessel  had  any  ri-^dit  to  resort  to  any  port  of  tlic 
United  States  for  sneli  purpost's. 

(L')  IJnt  American  tishiii};-  vessels  had  ari^jht  to  resort  to  certain  of  tlic 
coasts,  bays,  harhors,  ami  creeksof  tinit  part  of  IJritish  North  Aniciicii 
described  in  the  treaty  of  ISIS  for  all  purposes  of  tishinj::  whicli  tin y 
had  anciently  enjoyed. 

{'i)  I»ut  American  llsliin^  vessels,  and  lisliinj;'  vessels  onli/,  had  also  a 
riyiit  to  resort  to  all  other  Uritish  North  American  waters  for  tlic 
special  i)urposcs  named  in  the  treaty. 

(4).  The  general  result  of  this  was,  as  to  American  fishing  vessels,  that 
they  had,  on  all  the  Uritish  North  American  coasts  and  in  all  her  liiiys 
and  harbors,  the  right  to  shelter,  to  repair  damages,  and  to  obtain 
wood  and  water,  but  on  certain  named  parts  of  the  same  coasts,  cti'. 
they  had  not  the  right  to  take  or  cure  lish  ;  and 

(r))  As  a  consequence  of  the  situation  ejubraced  in  the  British  laws 
and  in  that  treaty,  ihe  matter  of  resorting  to  Uritish  North  Anioricii 
ports  either  by  American  lishing  or  other  vessels  was  entirely  outside 
of  and  unalfected  either  way  bv  that  treatv. 


From  181 S  forward,  until  after  the  reciprocal  arrangements  of  ISoOl 
concerning  commerce,  it  is  not  known  tlmt  any  serious  ditticnltios  oc- 
curred iu  respect  of  the  rights  of  American  fishermen  pursuing  tlioirj 
calling  in  those  regions  of  the  sea. 

Two  or  three  instances  only  of  seizure  appear  to  have  occurred  until 
after  1830  and  none  of  those  touched  or  raised  the  bay  or  headland: 
question.  In  1835  the  British  Government  brought  to  the  notice  of  oiiij 
own  the  complaints  of  the  Canadian  authorities  coucerning  alleged  iuj 
fractious  of  the  treaty  of  1818  by  our  fishermen.  These  complaints  diJ 
uot  involve  the  bay  or  headlands  question  or  nuy  commercial  (iiR'stiouj 
and  the  complaints  were  immediately  attended  to  by  our  Goveniuieil 
to  the  satisfaction  of  that  of  Great  Britain  (Ex.  Doc.  100,  Thirty  sistl 
Congress,  first  session,  pp.  oG  and  58). 


Tin;  FisiiKuir.s  Ti:i;.\iv.  7 

III  ls;{S-';5!)  tlH'ii'  were  ;i  few  more  sci/.iin's,  but  iioiio  of  tliciii  iippcar 
til  liiivi'  i;iis»'(l  tlic  l>iiy  or  liciulliinds  (iiu'.stioii.  One  \v;is  sci/rd  ;d  tliti 
<iiit  of  Ciinso  but  rcK'Uscd;  iiiid  noiu^  of  tlicsc  s«'izurc's  sipiicur  to  liavti 
involved  any  ('oimnctcial  or  tnidc  (|iU'stioii  cxjicptiii;;  tin*  Slicllmul,  \vlii(!li, 
Iiciii;;'  driven  iiishorci  by  a  storm,  aiicliored,  and  tli«^  master  wan  (siiliced 
into  selliii;jif  a  boy  who  came  on  boar*!,  a  pair  of  ti'onsers  and  a  little  tea 
iiiid  tobacu'o,  for  \vlii(;li  the,  vessel  was  immeiliatelC  seized,  it  bein;;  evi- 
ilt'iit  that  the.  boy  had  been  sent  l»y  the  authorities  to  entrap  tiie-  master 
'Ia'.  I)o(!.  100,  Thirtysixtii  ('on;,M'e.ss,  (Irst  session,  pp.  <m  and  (JO) ;  ami 
('Xt'cittinj;'  the  .l/^(//«o//ff,  which  purchased  a  barrel  oflnMrinj;"  for  bait;  and 
cxccptin;;'  the  lf<nl,  which,  ninnin^jj  into  Tnsket  Harbor  in  ln'avy  weather, 
;iiid  while  tin;  master  was  on  shore  pnxMirinjj  wood  and  water,  a  JJrit- 
isli  subject  asked  some  of  tli*^  crew  to  help  him  chsir  his  nets.  Some 
1)1'  the  crew  a(M',ordinj;ly  went  on  board  the  I'ritish  vessel  and  assisted 
ill  clearin;^  th(^  nets,  for  which  the  llritish  owner  j,^ave  two  bai'rels  of 
trcsh  lierrin;4' ;  and  excepting  the  I]liz<i,  which,  bein;;'  at  anchor  in  a  gale, 
carried  away  one  of  her  larboard  chains,  and  ran  into  IJevet  Harbor, 
;iiid  got  it  repaired  by  a  Hritish  subject,  and  was  accordinj^ly  seized. 

These  instaiuH's  are  specially  referretl  to  to  show  that  the  bay  and 
licadlands  question  almost  never  j)ra(;tically  arose,  and  that  the  ofl'enses, 
it'olfenses  they  wore,  of  the  seized  vessels,  were  of  the  most  trivial  and 
iiiiiiiil)ortant  character,  scarcely  wortliy  the  notice  of  a  jjoveriiment. 

in  1818  (and  before  the  treaty  of  that  year)  Con^ifress  i)assed  an  act 
closiiij;  our  ])orts  aj4aiiisi  Ilritish  vessels  comiiif;"  from  colonial  ports 
wliich  were  closed  aj^aiiist  vessels  owned  by  citizens  of  the  United  States 
(Stilts.,  vol.  3,  p.  4.')2) ;  and  in  1820  Congress  passed  a  supplementary 
act  ui)on  the  same  subject  and  upon  the  same  princiiile  of  mutuality, 
iippled  particularly  to  British  Xorth  American  ports  and  certain  West 
hidian  ones  (Stats.,  vol.3,  \y.  002);  and  in  1823  Conj^ress  i)assed  au  act 
suspending  the  former  acts  so  far  as  they  api)lied  to  sundry  ports 
named — the  Cana<liaii  ones  being  St.  John  and  St.  Andrews,  New  Ilrnns- 
wic'k;  Halifax,  Nova  Scotia;  Quebec,  Canada;  and  St.  John's,  Xew- 
tbiuidland. 

But  this  act  was  passed  with  the  condition  "that  the  enumerated 
IJritish  colonial  ports  should  be  open  for  the  admission  of  the  vessels 
of  the  Unite«l  States,  and  provided  that,  if  trade  and  intercourse 
should  be  interrui)ted  by  the  British  authority  in  those  ports,  similar 
[fiction  should  be  taken  by  the  President  in  respect  of  our  own. 

The  act  of  Congress  of  May  29, 1S30,  provided  for  opening  of  all  Ainer- 
jicaii  ports  to  certain  British  colonial  vessels  on  a  mutual  opening  of 


l! 


m 


m 


8 


THE    FISIIKKIKS   TKKATV. 


I5riti.sli  coloiiijil  iioiUs  to  Aiiiciicaii  vt'.sscls.     Section  l'  of  that  act  dc 
claiod  that — 

WliriHVt-r  (lio  jiortH  of  till-  I'niltil  Slalr.s  sliiiU  liavc  Im-imi  oiiciicil,  iiihIit  tlic  ;iii- 
tlioiity  ijivcii  ill  (In- liist  .section  ol' thi.s  iii.t,  IliitiHli  vcrscIm  immI  their  eur^fdes  shall 
!)<•  iKliiiitted  til  an  entry  in  tlie|i()itM  ofllic  Inited  Staten  Irdiii  tho  islaiidrt,  ]iroviiin-,, 
or  coloiiieH  of  (ireat  Uritaiii,  on  or  near  ilu?  Nortli  Aiiiorienii  continent,  anil  norlli  i,' 
fast  of  tho  United  StHtoH,(.Stat.s.,  v.  i,  ]>.  Iv'Oj. 

I'lU'siiaiit  to  this  a(!t  I'lcsidoiit  Jaeksoii,  on  the  5th  of  October,  iMii. 
in  neeortlaiKie  witJi  a  iiiiitiial  uiideistaiKliiij?  upon  the  subject  with  ilic 
(Joveniineiit  ot'CJreat  JJritaiii,  issued  liis  luochiination,  luittiu;.;"  tliis  iut 
of  l.SoO  into  eH'ect  (Stats,  V.  4,  p.  817).  And  on  tlie  ISth  of  November. 
18.'J0,  a  JJritish  oitU'i-  in  eouneil  was  issued,  deidaiin^  anion <;'  otiici 
thin^^s — 

That  the  Hhips  of,  and  l)i'ioni;in;;'  to,  tiio  I'nited  Stati's  orAinerica  may  iniport  fniii; 
the  United  States  albtesaidinto  tlio  iJritish  possess  ions  abroad  jfoods  witii  iirodiiLoni 
tlioso  Hlates,  and  may  export  j;oods  from  tlie  Jiritisli  possessions  a'lroad  to  be  eanin! 
to  any  foreij^n  country  wliatevcr  (liritisli  I'oniun  and  State  I'apeis,  \.  17,  p.  ",M!. 

It  is  clear  that  under  this  act  of  Con;jress  all  British  vessels,  witliout 
regard  to  their  octnipation,  wlietherli.shin;;'or  other,  coining  from  Ihitish 
North  America,  were  entitled  to  admission  into  our  i)orts  lor  all  pur- 
poses of  trade  and  commerce.  Canadian  Hshing  vessels  had  the  saiiif 
rights  as  any  other,  for  they  fell  within  the  general  description  stated 
in  the  statute.  Ho,  too,  recii)rocally,  our  tishing  vessels  fell  within  the 
general  (lescrii)tion  of  "shijis  of  and  belonging  to  tlie  United  States," 
Before  this  time  all  American  vessels  were  excluded  frouj  JJritish  North 
American  ports  with  the  then  recent  exception  before  stated;  then. 
under  this  arrangement  (dl  ships  of  the  United  States  were  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  British  Nortli  American  ports.  The  former  almost  univeisiil 
exclusion  was  abolished  without  reserve.  If  any  literal  reading  oftlii> 
British  order  in  council  can  be  suggested  as  of  a  narrower  construction, 
it  would  destroy  the  mutuality  of  the  action  of  the  two  govern iuciit> 
and  be  unworthy  of  a  government. 

Surely  no  nation  not  in  a  state  of  vassalage  would  consent  that  its 
citizens  or  subjects  should  for  a  moment  be  treated  in  or  b^*  anotber 
nation  in  a  less  favorable  way  than  it  treated  the  citizens  and  subjects  j 
of  the  same  class  and  occupation  of  such  other  nation. 

From  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  ISIS  down  to  nearly  1S40,  as  we  j 
have  seen,  the  incidents  of  collision  or  difiieulty  in  respect  of  the  rigbtsj 
of  the  purely  American  fishing  vessels  under  that  treaty  were  com- 


TllK    FISIIKUIKS    TKKATV. 


9 


Ct  (If- 

the  nil 

ivinn-, 
lorlli  M 

,  ISlll, 
ith  llu' 
his  ;k1 
■oinhi'i. 

f    OtllC! 

[lort  I'l  I  !i, 
1)1'  cni-rii-i! 

without 

11  r.i'itisli 
all  pin- 

the  siuiii' 

)5i  stati'tl 
thin  tlif 
States." 

Ish  North 
(1;  then. 
to  bo  luV 
uuiveisal 
!<;■  ot'tln> 
tnictioii. 
ernnieut> 

it  that  its 
y  auotlier 
[\  subjects 

UO,  as  \ve 

ItUe  I'iglit^ 

re re  com- 


]iiirativt'ly  low;  ami,  .so  far  as  the  f(»imiiitt«'(i  i.s  ailvincd,  .such  incidents 
(if  (liniculty  a.s  (KUMiircd  <li(l  not  aii.si)  iiialfr  iuiy  bay  or  hoadlaiid  \nv- 
iciisiou  of  (livat  Ilritaiii,  but  canic  out  of  a  few  Amt'iicMii  vt'.s.si'ls,  from 
tjiiie  to  time  having' eoine  within  .'!  miles  of  the  Hritish  Xorth  Auieiican 
slioiv.s,  bein^'  seized  upon  one  accn.sation  or  another. 

In  the  year  IS.'JIi  thi^  province  of  Xova  .Scotia  pa.sscd  law.s  of  a  more 
stiin;,'ciit  and  unjust  eharactter  than  any  that  had  exi.sted  before,  and 
ill  the  year  1S3.S  that  provin(;e  complained,  in  an  address  to  the  (^)uecn, 
(if  American  aj^'^ressions  and  asldn;;'  for  a  uaval  force  to  prevent  them. 
It  appears  tiiat  a  Jiriti.sh  force  was  accordin;;ly  phu'cd  on  the  IJritish 
North  Amei'ican  coast  and  tlie  seizures  of  American  vessels  became 
iiiiic'h  more  numerous.  (Sec  reports  and  pajiers  on  the  subject,  Senate 
Y.\,  Doc.  100,  Thirty-second  Conf^ress,  first  session.) 

It  apptnirs  irom  these  jiapers  that  nu)st  of  the  cases  of  Uriiish  8ei/ure 
were  for  alle<j;ed  violation.s  of  the  custoujs  laws.  That  others  of  them 
wiv  for  violations  of  the  i)rivile;^'es  secured  l>y  the  treaty  of  iSlS,  by 
iiiniiiji"  within  3  miles  of  the  shore;  and  so  far  as  it  is  known,  it  was 
lint  until  the  lUth  May,  1S4.'{,  that  any  American  vessel  was  seized  for 
isliing  more  than  3  miles  from  the  shore  in  a  bay  indenting  the  Uriti.sh 
North  American  coast. 

lUit  in  the  diplonnUic  corresi)ondence  of  that,  i)eriod  the  ]»retension 

[was  asserted  by  tne  J'ritish  Ciovernment  that  bays  more  than  0  miles 

wide,  ami  of  indelinite  width,  if  bays  indenting;'  JJriti.sh  shores,  were 

wjiliiii  the  exclusion  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  and  under  this  i)retension 

[the  American  lishinj;  vessel  The  Washiiu/ton  was  .seized  for  lishiny-  in 

[tlieDay  of  Fundy,  but  more  than  3  miles  from  the  shore.    This  preten- 

Hoii  of  the  British  Government  was  denied  by  our  own,  but  no  agreeineii  t 

[upon  the  subject  was  come  to. 

This  state  of  things,  with  more  or  less  of  collision  and  harassment  to 

Diirlishing  vessels,  continued,  but  without  veiy  serious  difliculty,  until, 

111  1852,  an  attempt  was  made  by  the  British  Government  to  induce 

[lie  United  States  to  conclude  a  reciprocity  treaty,  whic'.  ^ailing,  the 

British  Government  sent  a  strong  force  of  war  steamers  and  sailing 

^essels  to  these  waters  for  the  alleged  purpose  of  enforcing  the  provis- 

Misof  the  treaty  of  1818,  but,  as  was  believed  by  the  people  and  Gov- 

Iniment  of  the  United  States,  intended  not  only  for  that,  but  as  an 

Sveiawing  enterprise,  which  should  frighten  the  American  fishermen 

fom  resorting  to  British  waters  for  any  of  the  purposes  mentioned  in 

lie  treaty,  and  to  so  much  disturb  American  fishing  interests  as  to 


'"«il! 


10 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


seriously  cripple  or  destroy  them,  and  tlius  lead  the  United  States  to 
enter  into  reciprocity  ^^ith  British  Xortli  Ainericiin  provinces. 

Docnnientary  i)npers  and  discnssions  in  the  Senate  at  the  time  will 
show  how  full}'  this  matter  was  nnderstood,  and  how  it  was  regarded 
by  the  people  and  Government  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Wehster. 
then  Secretary  of  State,  therenpon  issned  a  circnlar  notice  to  American 
fishermen,  in  which  he  states  what  the  rigid  and  strict  construction  o! 
the  treaty  of  1818  would  be,  as  claimed  by  the  ]>ritish,  as  it  respected 
the  entrance  of  fishing  vessels  into  the  bays  or  harbors  indentin.i;'  tlic 
British  provinces.  He  stated  the  British  pretension  in  res[)ect  of  draw- 
ing lines  from  headland  to  headland  and  their  asserted  j)retensi()n  of  a 
right  to  capture  all  American  fishermen  who  should  follow  their  i)iu- 
suits  in  bays  inside  of  sucli  lines.  But  he  distinctly  also  stated,  in  tlu' 
same  circular,  that  he  did  not  agree  to  the  construction  thus  put  by 
the  British  upon  the  treaty,  or  that  it  was  conformable  to  the  intention 
of  the  contracting  parties;  but  he  informed  the  public  of  the  liritisli 
pretension,  "to  the  end  that  those  concerned  in  American  fisheries  may 
perceive  how  the  case  at  present  stands  and  be  on  their  guard."  (II, 
R.  iMis.  Doc.  No.  32,  Forty-second  Congress,  second  session.) 

This  circular  of  Mr.  Webster  was  of  July,  1852,  and  on  the  I'iid 
August  of  The  same  year,  twenty-two  years  after  the  laws  of  ISoO,  tlio 
provincial  secretary  of  Nova  Scotia  issued  a  notice  that  "no  xVmerica; 
fishing  vessels  are  entitled  to  commercial  privileges  in  provincial  ports."  j 
etc.  (Memorandum  respecting  North  American  fisheries,  prepared  for 
the  information  of  the  American  commissioners  who  negotiated  tin' 
treaty  of  1871). 

Following  these  operations,  the  claims  convention  of  the  Sth  of  Feb- 
ruary, 18.j3,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  was  con- 
cluded, and  under  that  convention  the  case  of  the  WaNhington,  seizeilj 
for  fishing  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  as  before  mentioned,  was  heard,  ami 
the  umpire  decided  that  the  true  meaning  of  the  trt-aty  of  1818  niadeitj 
lawful  for  the  Wash  I  in/ton  to  fish  more  than  three  miles  from  the  shore  in  j 
the  Bay  of  Fuiuly,  (ind  in  respect  of  the  headland  pretension  he  says; 

Tliat  the  J3iiy  of  Fiindy  is  not  :i  Jhiti.sli  bay,  noi-  a  bay  within  tlie  nicanini;  ci  il' 
Avord  as  used  in  t!;o  treatios  of  178:5  and  Isl'?. 

Jle  refers  to  the  convention  of  1831)  between  France  and  Great  lUitaiiil 
in  respect  of  reciprocal  fisjhing  by  the  subjects  of  each  country  aloii^tlnj 
shoresof  the  other,  providing  that  their  conventional  arrangements  slnilj 
exclude  the  fishermen  of  each  from  bays  which  do  not  exceed  l'>  Jiiiki 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


n 


^i 


in  width  within  the  shores  of  the  other  as  a  proper  limit  of  the  doctrine 
of  headhinds. 

]^nt  upon  this  point  (immaterial  to  the  ([Uestion  before  him)  It  is  to 
be  observed  that  the  lO-mile  headland  arrangement  between  Franee 
and  Great  Britain  was  a  mutual  one,  applying-  to  the  shores  and  bays 
of  both  countries  along  which  the  fisliermen  of  each  were  accustomed 
to  ply  their  calling,  and  if,  therefore,  that  convention  had  agreed  upon 
a  distance  of  10  miles  from  shore,  and  20  miles  for  the  width  of  the 
waters  between  headlands,  it  would  have  furnished  no  argument 
in  respipct  of  the  principle  of  public  law  applicable  to  such  (luestions 
or  in  respect  of  the  ancient  rights  of  the  citizens  of  the  Tnited 
States  in  regard  to  the  fisheries  in  northeastern  waters,  for  the 
lisliermen  of  each  country  were  put  upon  a  jtrecisely  equal  footing 
in  respect  of  the  waters  and  ports  of  the  other,  which,  on  the  rrit- 
i^li  theory,  strangely  enough,  has  not  existed  between  British  and 
Anieiican  fishermen  since  the  act  of  Congress  of  1830,  and  will  lujt 
exist  if  the  treaty  under  consideration  should  go  into  effect. 

In  1854,  however,  the  objects  of  British  and  Canadian  desire  were  at 
last  accomplished  by  the  conc^lusion  of  the  treaty  of  the  .jth  of  June  of 
that  year,  by  which  an  extensive  reciprocity,  so  called,  of  trade  was 
agreed  upon,  and  the  right  granted  to  the  Americans  to  fisli  within  the 
limits  prohibited  by  the  treaty  of  1818  under  a  variety  of  restrictions 
and  limitations,  and  a  similar  right  granted  to  JUitish  fishermen  in  the 
waters  of  the  United  States  north  of  latitude  'MP. 

In  the  same  treaty  were  various  other  provisions  respecting  naviga- 
tion of  the  St.  Lawrence,  Anierican  and  Caimdian  canals,  etc.,  and  the 
treaty  was  terminable  on  notice  after  the  expiration  often  years.  The 
experience  of  the  United  States  and  their  citizens  under  that  treaty* 
led  Congress  to  ternu'nate  it  in  the  winter  of  18(}l-'05  by  a  vote  of 
nearly  2  to  1  in  the  House  of  IJepresentatives  and  by  a  vote  of  nearly 
"ito  1  in  the  Senate. 

The  Caiurdian  Government  then  for  a  lew  years  resorted  to  a  system 
of  licensing  American  fishermen  to  fish  in  the  waters  from  which  they 
were  excluded  for  fishing  purposes  by  the  treaty  of  1818.  l-'or  the  first 
year  the  number  of  licenses  is  reported  to  have  been  354,  at  .jO  cents  per 
ton.  The  next  year,  18G7,  the  license  fee  was  made  81  per  ton  ;  the 
number  of  licenses  is  reported  to  have  been  281.  The  next  year, 
18(1S-'G!),  the  license  lee  was  again  donble<l — '^'2  \wi'  ton — and  in  18<>8' 
only  5G  licenses  were  taken  out,  ami  in  1809  only  2."). 


^i 

•;Im 

< "  , .  ■ 

^    '.'■ 

;|j; 

'r  h 

' 


■•m 


12 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY, 


In  ISGS  the  Dominion  GoverniuLMit  proceeded  to  euact  the  most  harsh 
and  stringent  hiws  on  the  snbject  of  American  lishermen  calculated  and. 
it  is  thought,  undoubtedly  designed  to  so  harass  American  fisheniR'u 
in  the  exercise  of  the  rights  reserved  to  them  by  the  treaty  of  ISls  as 
to  cripple  and  destroy  their  oi)erati()ns.  Analogous  legislation  by  ZS^ew. 
foundhmd  in  1830  had  led  the  United  States  to  remonstrate  against  it 
as  a  "  violation  of  the  well-established  principles  of  the  common  law  of 
England  and  of  the  principles  of  all  just  powers  and  of  all  civilized  na- 
tions, and  seemed  to  be  expressly  designed  to  enable  Her  Majesty's 
authorities,  with  perft^ct  impunity',  to  seize  and  confiscate  American 
vessels  and  embezzle  almost  indiscriminately  the  i)roperty  of  our  citi- 
zens employed  in  the  fisheries  on  the  coasts  of  thellritish  Possessions" 
(Ex.  Doc.  100,  Thirty-second  Congress,  iiist  session). 

In  1870  the  British  Government  informed  our  own  that  the  Canadian 
Government  would  issue  no  more  licenses  to  American  lishermen;  and. 
notwithstanding  the  decision  of  the  umpire  in  the  case  of  the  Wash 
hif/ton  in  1853,  announced  the  British  claim  to  the  exclusion  of  tln' 
American  lishing  vessels  from  coming  within  British  headlands,  witli- 
out  regard  to  the  width  of  the  bay  between.  (See  lleport  on  Forcij;!! 
Ilelations,  1870). 

Then  came  the  treaty  of  1871,  devoted  primarily'  to  the  Alabama 
claims,  but  which  ])rovided  that  for  the  period  of  ten  years  fisherineu 
of  the  United  States  should  have,  in  addition  to  their  rights  under  tlif 
treaty  of  1818,  the  ri.ght  of  British  Xorth  American  in-shore  fisluug 
under  certain  limitations,  etc. ;  and  the  United  States  agreed  to  the 
free  admission  of  British  North  American  lishery  products  into  our 
country,  and  it  was  also  provided  that  the  British  lishermen  might 
fish  in  certain  American  waters,  and  that  the  balance  of  alleged  advan- 
tage to  the  United  States  in  these  respects  should  be  settled  by  a  com- 
mission. 

This  commission,  as  is  well  known,  by  the  vote  of  the  British  com- 
missioner and  the  Belgian  umpire,  and  against  the  vote  of  the  Ameri- 
can commissioner,  fixed  the  sum  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States  at 
85,500,000.  The  gioss  injustice  of  this,  as  believed  by  the  United 
States,  led  the  Semite,  on  the  27th  February,  1879,  six  years  before  tlie 
fisheries  provision  could  expire  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  to  unaiii- 
niousl.y  pass  a  resolution  declaring  that  steps  ought  to  be  taken  topic- 
A'ide  for  the  earliest  possible  termination  of  these  lishery  arrangements 
by  negotiations  with  tlie  British  Government  to  that  end.    It  is  under- 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


13 


abaina 

UTineu 

u'lor  tliL' 

to  the 
iito  ouv 
u  wW 

I  iulViUl- 

y  II  com- 

isU  cow- 
Ameri- 
)tates  lit 

>t'ore  tlK' 
to  uiiaui- 
|u  to  i)i'0- 
loo  meats 
lis  uiuler- 


stood  that  the  Piesifleiit  of  the  United  States,  ii)  i)iir.suance  of  this  ivc- 
oininendatioii,  endeavored  to  obtain  the  agreement  ot  (rreat  IJritain  to 
an  immediate  termination  of  these  clauses  in  the  treaty,  but  without 
success. 

In  February,  1SS3,  however,  as  the  period  was  approacliiug  when 
tliese  provisions  eonhl  be  terminated  on  notice,  both  liouses  of  Con- 
oress  unanimously  (or  certainly  without  any  division)  passed  resolutions  • 
terminating  Articles  XVIII,  XIX,  XX,  XXI,  XXII,  XXIII,  XXIV, 
XX\',  XXX,  and  XXXII  of  said  treaty,  which  articles  covered  the 
whole  fishery  subject  as  well  as  certain  matters  of  navigation,  etc. 
This  termination  took  effect  on  July  1,  18S5. 

By  the  tweilty-ninth  article  of  the  same  treaty,  which  is  still  in  force, 
the  United  States  engaged  that  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  ar- 
riving at  certain  ports  named  and  destined  for  the  British  i)ossessions 
ill  North  America,  should  have  entry  and  transit  without  the  payment 
of  dutj',  and  it  was  recii>rocally  agreed  on  the  part  of  (rreat  Britain 
that  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  arriving  at  any  of  the  ports  of 
Britisii  North  America  and  destined  for  the  United  States,  should  also 
luive  the  right  of  free  entry  and  transit  to  the  United  States,  etc. 

That  the  foregoing  mentioned  article  of  the  treaty  of  1871  covered 
iiucl  included  the  transmission  of  tlsh  from  American  tishing  vessels  as 
well  as  other  goods  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  plain  and  comprehen- 
sive language  of  the  article,  but  from  the  statements  of  the  formal 
British  case  laid  before  the  Halifax  Commission  in  1877,  wherein  the 
right  of  the  transshii)ment  of  tish  frt)m  Cainidian  ports  to  the  United 
^States  free  of  duty,  covered  by  that  article,  was  made  tlie  ground  of 
claim  for  compensation. 

lUit  it  will  be  seen  on  inspection  of  the  treaty  of  1871  that  the  tish- 
L'ries  articles  of  that  treaty  contained  no  provision  either  in  respect  of 
any  commercial  rights  in  Canadian  i)orts  ov  in  respect  of  transship- 
iiuMits,  and  that  the  recii)rocal  transshipment  article  of  the  treaty  was 
entirely  separate  and  distinct  from  any  (pu?stion  of  iisheries  or  fish  as 
such;  but  the  proceedings  before  that  commission  distinctly  demon- 
[strated  that  under  article  LM)  the  right  to  transship  tish  was  understood 
by  the  British  to  be  included  and  without  any  conditions  depending 
upon  tlie  force  of  any  other  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty,  and  it  is  also 
jtc  be  observed  that  the  tisheries  articles,  in  respect  of  their  duration 
[iiml  termination,  are  treated  of  separately  and  by  themselves  in  article 
|33,  which  provided  that  they,  as  a  group  by  themselves,  might  be  ter- 


I) !  ■•  tl 


'  r'  i 


14 


THE    FISITERIES    TREATY. 


luinated  after  ten  yeais,  on  two  years' notice,  while  the  reciprocal  traiiis. 
sbipiiient  article  20  was  left  to  stand  independently  by  itself. 
It  inevitably  follows : 

(1)  That  the  rif;lit  of  American  fishing  vessels  to  transship  tjieir  li.sh 
from  Canadian  i)orts  to  those  of  the  United  States  Avas  not  derived 
from  the  fisheries  articles  and  did  not  dei)end  npon  them. 

(2)  That  such  right  clearly  existed  by  force  of  article  20  and  did  not 
depend  npon  any  other  article,  and 

(3)  That  article  20,  not  liaviiifj  been  terminated,  the  rightof  xVmerican 
fishing  vessels  to  enter  Canadian  ports  for  the  purj)ose  of  transsliip. 
})ing  their  cargoes  is  as  clear  and  unquestionable  as  that  of  any  otliui 
American  vessels. 

IJjider  the  treaty  of  1871,  with  all  the  privileges  granted  to  Americans 
in  respect  of  fishing  in  British  waters,  the  practical  result  was  tlio 
diminution  of  American  fishing  interests  and  a  corresponding  large  in 
crease  of  the  Canadian  fishiug  interests,  owing  to  the  superior  facilities 
of  the  Canadians  in  fishing  near  their  own  homes  and  their  right  giiai- 
antied  bj'  that  treaty  to  dispose  of  their  fish  in  American  ports  free  from 
all  duties  and  impositions.  It  was  this,  doubtless,  that  led  the  Briti.sii 
Government  to  refuse  to  terminate  the  fisheries  article  of  1871  when  ir 
had  already  obtained  8."5,oOO,000  as  the  established  recomi)ense  for  tlie 
superior  (alleged)  advantages  obtained  by  xVmerican  fishermen  under 
that  treaty. 

After  the  final  termination  of  the  fisheries  articles  of  the  treaty  di 
1871,  it  being  apparent  that  the  United  States  could  not  be  persuadcil 
or  beguiled  into  a  renewal  of  the  so-called  reciprocit}"  with  Canada,  the 
former  methods  of  unfriendly  coercion  and  harassment  were  again  re- 
sorted to  and  with  grea*"  -'ggeration.  New  Canadian  laws,  sanctioned 
by  the  homo  governn  •  ..ere  enacted,  calculated  and  evidently  de- 
signed to  ettectually  frustrate  and  destroy  all  the  substantial  riglits 
that  American  fish-rmen  were  entitled  to  enjoy  under  the  treaty'  of  1818. 
and  to  destroy  V  m  mutuality  of  the  act  of  1830  and  the  benefits  ul' 
article  20  of  the  treaty  of  1871. 

Our  Government  remonstrated,  at  first  mildly,  and  later  on  with  sonie- 
thing  of  the  vigor  that  should  belong  to  those  intrusted  with  the  de- 
fense of  clear  American  rights.  IJut  these  remonstrances,  unacconiiiii- 
nied  or  followed  by  any  further  steps,  were  unavailing. 

The  President,  in  his  annual  message  of- December,  1885,  in  viewut 
these  circninstances,  recommended  to  Congress  the  making  provision! 


i.VACT  toiiiil 
fiin  fishiiif,'  vos 
'"'■  other  puip, 

I'C  it  enacted 
"'  Coiiyreffs  ana 
i>iii'il  tliat  Am 
"■"fi'»i(irat  ail 
''"•'1.V  l!;iv(.'bo( 
"■Mlyorliiw,  ( 

'"t'lltofNllchii 

""■"f-'<  ill  rcsjK., 
'"rs,  ports  or  p 
"lilt  iiiiy  fsiK,.], 
ruitcd  .Stiitcs  f 
['!oiiiii:i(,!,H  of  N 
•"'"''•ills  Mieli  1, 
"Wl.'itioii.^s  jis 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


15 


for  a  coinnii.ssiou  to  adjust  and  settle  the  difliculties  and  disputes  tluis 
arisen,  but  Congress  did  not  see  lit  to  do  it,  and  the  Senate,  on  tlie 
VM\  of  April,  1S8(),  adojited  a  resolution  by  a  nntjority  of  25  deelaring- 
that,  in  its  judgment,  no  sueli  coninii.ssion  ought  to  bo  established; 
and  by  a  resolution  of  the  -Uh  uf  July,  1880,  i)roceeded  to  order  an 
investigation  by  its  committee  on  foreign  relations  into  the  fishery 
(]uestion  and  into  the  unjust  treatment  of  our  iishermen  and  the  circum- 
stances connected  therewith,  with  a  view,  as  it  may  be  jjresnmed,  to 
taking  snch  measures  on  the  report  of  its  committee  as  the  interests 
and  honor  of  the  United  States  should  re(iuire. 

That  committee  made  an  exiiaustive  investigation,  and  without  any 
dissent  from  any  of  its  members  reported  to  the  Senate,  on  the  lOtli  of 
January,  1887,  npon  the  subject,  stating  the  history  of  these  dillicnlties 
and  the  clear  rights  that  it  was  thought  belonged  to  the  United  States 
and  to  their  citi/.ens,  and  recommended  the  eiuictment  of  a  law  for  the 
protection  of  American  rights. 

Snch  a  law  was  enacted,  the  bill  ])assing  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  40 
in  the  athrmative  to  1  in  the  negative,  and  passing  the  llonse  of  Kep- 
leseutatives  with  an  en'  ^ng  amendment  by  a  vote  of  -50  in  the  atllrm- 
ative  to  1  in  the  neg.    .»e. 

Oa  the  ])assage  of  this  law  the  oidy  difference  between  the  two 
Imu.ses  was  that  concerning  the  extent  to  which  these  defensive  meas- 
nres  should  go.  This  act  of  Congress  was  approved  by  the  President 
m  the  od  of  ^larch,  1887,  and  is  in  the  following  words: 

AX  ACT  to  iiiillioiizo  tlio  I'loaident  of  tho  Uliitud  St.1te.^  lo  protect  and  dcloiid  tlio  lis'its  of  Amei  i- 
<m  fisliiii^  vcssul.s,  Ameiu'aii  lislusrmeit,  Anu'vicau  tradiuj;  aii<l  otlior  vossels,  in  ci'itain  oases,  and 
li'iot'iRT  ])uii)0.ses. 

Ik  i7  enacted  hij  the  Senate  and  House  of  Hepi'tKentatirc-s  of  the  United  States  of  America 

ill  Cou'jrtHfi  assemhled,  Tliat  whenever  the  President  of  the  Uuitetl  States  shall  bo  sat- 

ifliiMl  tliat  Anu'iicau  Ihhing  vessels  or  American  Iishermen,  visitinj;  or  being  in  the 

■viitirs  or  at  any  ports  or  phices  of  the  Brilisli  dominions  of  North  America,  are  or  then 

I  lately  have  been  denied  or  abridged  in  tlie  enjoyment  of  any  riglits  secured  to  tlieni  by 

treaty  or  hiw,  or  are  then  or  lately  liave  [been  J  nnjustly  vexed  or  harassed  in  the  enjoy- 

liit'iitof  snch  rights,  or  bulijectod  to  unreasonable  restrictions,  regulations,  or  require- 

iiKiita  in  respect  of  such  rights;  or  otherwise  unjnslly  vexed  or  liarassed  in  said  wa- 

|l'Ts,  ports  or  places;  or  whenever  the  President  of  the  I'nited  States  shall  be  satisfied 

'iiat  any  sucli  lisliing  vessels  or  fisherinen,  having  a  permit  under  the  laws  of  tho 

I'liitcd  States  to  touch  and  trade  at  any  port  or  potts,  ]dace  or  places,  in  the  British 

ii'.iiinir.idiis  of  North  America,  are  or  then  lately  liave   Ix'on  denied  the  i)rivilege  of 

jiiitiriiig  t-ucli  port  or  ports,  ])lace  or  places,  in  the  same  manner  and  under  the  san.e 

jfi'siiilations  as  nuiy  exist  therein  applicable  to  trading  Vessels  of  the  most  favored 


M  I 


At.  I 


llti 
I  ilk 


■il 


i*^  ■"<(.-, Iff 


16 


THK    FISIIERIKS   TREATY. 


nation,  or  sliall  bo  unjustly  vexed  or  liarnssed  in  respect  thereof,    or  otlierwise  be 
inijustly  vexed  or  harassed  therein,  or  shall  be  prevented  from  purchasing  such  sii]). 
jdies  as  may  there  be  lawfully  sold  to  trading  vessels  of  the  most  favored  nation:  or 
whenever  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  be  satisfied  that  any  other  vi'ssels 
of  the  United  States,  their  masters  or  crews,  so  arriving  at  or  being  in  such  Ihitish 
waters  or  ports  or  places  of  tlie  British  don;inions  of  North  Anu;rica,  an;  or  tlien 
lately  have  been  denied  any  of  the  inivilegos  therein  accorded  to  the  vessels,  tlieii 
masters  or  crews,  of  the  most  favored  nation,  or  unjustly  vexed  or  harassed  in  respect 
•  if  the  same,  or  unjustly  vexed  or  liarassed  therein  by  the  authorities  thereof,  tlieii, 
and  in  either  or  all  of  such  cases,  it  shall  be  lawful,  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  tln' 
President  of  the  L'nited  States,  in  his  discretion,  by  i)roclaiiiatiou  to  that  eflL'ct,  u, 
deny  vessels,  their  masters  and  crews,  of  the  15ritisli  dominions  of  North  Ainericii, 
any  entrance  into  the  waters,  ports,  or  places  of,  or  -within  the  United  States,  (with 
such  exceptions  in  regard  to  vessels  in  distress,  stress  of  weather,  or  needing  snii. 
plies  as  to  the  President  shall  seem  proper),  whether  such  vessels  shall  have  ifniic 
directly  from  said  dominions  on  such  desiined  voyage  or  by  way  of  some  port  or 
place  in  such  destined  voyage  elsewhere;  and  also,  to  deny  entrj'  into  any  port  ni 
place  of  the  United  States  of  fresh  fish  or  salt  fish  or  any  other  product  of  said 
dominions,  or  other  goods  coming  from  said  dominions  to  the  United  States.    Tin' 
President  may,  in  his  discretion,  apply  such  proclamation  to  any  part  or  to  all  of  tin 
foregoing-named  subjects,  and  may  revoke,  (jualify,  limit,  and  renewsuch  proclaniatioi) 
from  time  to  time  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  the  full  and  just  execution  of  the  purposes 
of  this  act.     Every  violation  of  any  such  proclamation,  or  any  part  thereof,  is  lioreliy 
declared  illegal,  and  all  vessels  and  goods  so  coming  or  being  within  the  waters,  ports 
or  places  of  the  United  States  contrary  to  such  proclamation  shall  bo  forfeited  to  tli-' 
United  States  ;  and  such  forfeiture  shall  bo  enforced  and  proceeded  upon  in  tlic  sanu'  i 
manner  and  with  the  same  etfcct  as  in  the  case  of  vessels  or  goods  whose  impo'tatid- 
or  coming  to  or  being  in  the  waters  or  ports  of  the  United  States  contrary  to  law  may  I 
now  be  enforced  and  proceeded  upon.     Every  person  who  shall  violate  any  of  the] 
provisions  of  this  act,  or  such  proclamation  of  the  President  made  in  pursiiame 
hereof,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and,  on  conviction  thereof,  shall  lie] 
punished  by  a  line  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  f()r  a  term 
not  exceeding  two  years,  or  by  both  saul  punishments,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court.  I 
Approved,  March  ;5,  18ft7. 

So  far  as  is  knoAvn  to  the  comraittoe,  no  step  \>  liatevor  \vas  taken  liyj 
the  President  to  put  this  law  into  execution,  but  negotiations  were  in 
itiateil  and  continued,  to  the  apparent  end  of  accomplishing,  whatCuii 
gress  had  thought  it  unlit  to  undertake  in  such  way,  an  adjustment  (ifj 
these  dilliculties  by  the  diplomatic  course  of  securing  a'part  of  Anier- 
can  rights  at  the  expense  of  yielding  other  and  the  most  fundameiital 
and  important  of  them. 

These  negotiations  culminated  in  the  ai)pointment  by  the  PresideutJ 
during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  ou  the  22d  of  November,  18S7,  only  teiij 
days  before  the  meeting  of  Congress,  of  three  "plenipotentiaries," 


THE   FISHERIES   TREATV. 


17 


m 

m 


I  were  iu- 
lluit  Con 

Aiui'V 
anient; 

,  only  toll 
laries."  t' 


consider,  with  like,  plenipotentiaries  appointed  by  Tier  ]\raje.sty,  tlie 
wliolo  snbject,  with  ii  view  of  eoniins  to  a  solntion  tliereof. 

TJjese  plenipotentiaries,  thus  created,  began  their  real  work  at  Wash- 
ington while  both  houses  of  Congress  were  sittin','',  and  without  any 
coinnuinieation  by  the  President  in  his  annual  message  on  the  meeting- 
of  Congress,  or  otherwise,  of  the  fact  that  such  important  and  extra- 
ordinary operations  were  in  progress,  or  that  very  grave  interests  of 
the  United  States  had  been  placed  in  the  custodj'  of  gentlemen  wiiose 
names  had  not  even  been  communicated  to  it. 

These  "  plenipotentiaries"  came  to  a  conclusion  of  their  labors  on  the 
15th  of  February,  1888,  and  the  otlices  of  "plenipotentiaries''  termi- 
nated, and  the  result  was  reached  without  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate  having  been  asked  or  taken  concerning  the  selection  of  these 
public  ministers,  and  without  any  communication  to  either  house  of 
Congress  concerning  this  most  important  subject. 

It  is  not  dillicult  to  see  that,  in  evil  times,  when  the  President  of  the 
United  States  may  be  under  influence  of  foreign  and  adverse  interests, 
such  a  course  of  procedure  might  result  in  great  disaster  to  the  interests 
■m\  even  the  safety  of  our  Government  and  peoi)le. 

It  is  no  answer  to  this  suggestion  to  say  that  an  arrangement  thus 
L'oncluded  can  not  be  valid  or  effectual  without  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate,  for  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  might  be  so  neglected,  misunderstood,  abandoned,  or  sold  by 
President's  "plenipotentiaries"  as  to  greatly  embarrass,  if  not  defeat, 
their  ultimate  re-assertion  in  better  times  and  under  better  administra- 
itious,  though  it  is  hoped  that  such  will  not  be  the  case  in  respect  of 
liese  negotiations. 

The  document  submitted  to  the  Senate  by  the  President  us  the  out- 
onie  of  these  negotiations  nmy,  it  is  thought,  well  illustrate  the  dangers 
fsuch  methods. 

But  holding  in  reserve,  for  the  time  being,  these  grave  questions 
wicliiiig  usurpations  of  unconstittitional  powers,  or  the  abuse  of  those 
at  may  be  thought  to  exist  on  the  part  of  the  Executive,  the  commit- 
0  tliinks  it  suihcient  for  the  present  occasion  to  deal  with  the  docu- 
n'ut  itself. 

The  subject  with  wh^ch,  according  to  the  message  of  the  President 
iuisuiitting  it,  this  document  professes  to  deal,  is  "  the  settlement  of  the 
estions  growing  out  of  the  rights  claimed  by  American  fishermen  in 
itish  North  American  waters."  And  the  document  opens  with  the 
S.  :Mis.  109 2 


It' 


1  m 


i^i. 


lliiiiji;'].''! 


h 


« 


18 


Tin:  n.siiKinivS  tkkatv. 


stateinent  that  it  lias  to  deal  with  "diireronces    #    #     #    eoiiccri'lui; 
Llie  iiitc'i'iiretatioii  of  Article  I  of  the  i'onvcntioii  of  October  LM),  ISl  ,." 
'The  article  referred  to  ai)pears  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  report. 

Tlie  language  of  this  article  is,  as  has  olteii  been  stated  in  lon;^-  (li>. 
cussions  upon  the  subject,  jterfectly  dear.  And  as  it  respects  the  ter- 
ritorial limits  wherein  American  fishermen  should  no  longer  have  tiicii 
-ancient  right  of  fishing,  there  has  not  been  and  can  not  be  any  question 
capable  of  discussion,  other  than  that  uhich  may  arise  from  the  use  of 
the  words  "  bays,"  etc.,  of  Her  Majesty's  dominons. 

The  article  itself,  in  clear  and  unmistakable  language,  recognized  and 
adopted  ;»  miles  from  the  shore  as  the  extreme  limit  of  municii>al  du 
minion  and  exclusion,  but  it  also  used  the  words  "bays,"  etc. — Britisli 
bayti — as  included  within  the  i)rohil)ited  territory. 

For  many  years  after  the  conclusion  of  this  treaty,  of  181S  there  does 
not  ajjpear  to  have  been  any  ditliculty  in  respect  of  the  exercise  of  tlie 
rights  of  American  fishermen  in  bays  along  the  IJritish  North  Aniericaiij 
coast  that  were  more  than  G  miles  wide  at  their  entrance,  thus  followiiijj 
the  description  embraced  in  the  .'J-mile  designation  of  munici])al  bdiuid 
ary. 

But  when  the  Canadians  found  that  they  could  not  have  the  same  ;ii 
vantages  enjoyed  by  American  citizens,"  fishermen,  in  introducing  tbeii; 
tish  and  other  products  into  the  United  States  on  the  same  tonus  ;i^ 
our  own  citizens,  a  system  of  restrictive  claim  was  adopted,  and  tli^ 
pretension  was  set  up  that  any  bay,  no  matter  how  wide,  iiidciitiii^ 
British  North  America,  was  a  British  bay,  and  that  the  American  lis 
ermen  were  by  the  treaty  of  ISbS  forbidden  to  fish  therein,  and  in  Ui\ 
the  first  seizure  under  tliat  claim  occurre<l.  The  American  fisliinj-  via 
sel  Washingion  was  the  vessel.  What  was  decided  and  settled  in  liej 
case  has  already  been  8tate«l. 

From  that  day  to  this  no  instance  has  been  brought  to  the  atteiitioj 
of  the  committee  (among  all  the  various  and  very  numerous  seizures^ 
American  fishing  vessels  by  the  British  authorities  under  the  chiiiin 
violations  of  the  treaty  of  1818)  of  any  seizure  of  any  Americiui  lisl 
iug  vessel  for  the  act  of  fishing  in  any  bay  indenting  the  British  XoiW"^"^  ^o  show 
American  coast  more  than  3  miles  from  the  shore.  ■    '    "*'  ^^  "' 

It  is  curious  to  note  that  in  the  o;»ening  BritivSh  case  before  tlio  IhiB''"'  entirelj 
fax  Commission,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  headlands  question  tL;itliW''J'^^^J's  Govl 
from  time  to  time  been  a  subject  of  theoretical  discussion  between  tB  "^  this  is 
two  Coverumeuts.    But  after  the  case  had  been  presented  the  (iuestiB^''P'"8'  at  n^ 


1818 


THE    FISIIEKIES    TIIKATV. 


19 


was  refeiixHl  to,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  dropped  in  view  of  tlie  fact 
that  iishing-  in  sneli  bays  did  not  appear  to  be  of  any  substantial  value 
at  tliat  time.  Tlius  the  bay  and  lieadland  matter  stood  when  these  hist 
negotiations  bep:an. 

Tlie  lirst  article  of  the  treaty  now  under  consideration  i)rovides  for 
the  ai)pointmeut  of  a  mixed  commission,  to  deliminate  "the  British 
waters,  bays,  creeks,  and  harbors  of  the  coasts  of  Canada  and  of  Xew- 
foundland,  as  to  which  the  United  States,  by  Article  1  of  the  conven- 
tion of  October  20,  1818,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  IJritain, 
renounced  forever  any  liberty  to  take,  dry,  or  cure  iish/' 

Certainly  a  delimitation  of  3  miles  from  the  shore  could  not  possibly 
be  made  more  clear  than  it  was  by  the  treaty  of  1818.    Jlonuments  can 
not  be  set  nj)  in  the  sea  which  shall  separate  the  waters  of  Iler  Ma- 
jesty's dominions  from  the  waters  belonging  to  the  flshermen  and  all 
other  people  of  the  United  States  in  common  with  the  rest  of  mankind. 
The  only  possible  point  must  be  to  describe  what  were  British  bays, 
etc.,  and  if  this  article  had  only  been  devoted  to  naming  the  bays,  etc., 
that  were  less  than  G  miles  wide,  there  might  have  been  some  thoretic 
;,'i'ound  for  such  an  operation.     But  the  treaty  easily  dismisses  all  such 
as  a  part  of  the  coast  line,  and  proceeds  to  show  that  the  3-mile  limit 
iiieutioned  in  the.  treaty  of  1818  is  not  the  one  that  is  to  define  the 
44its  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  but  that  a  new  and  different 
principle,  entirely  favorable  to  Great  Britain,  is  to  be  adopted.    To  this 
end  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  provides  that  the  3  marine  miles  men- 
tioned in  the  treaty  of  18 L8 — 

ll\(\  ill  Isl^Bsiiall  be  measured  seaward  from  low-water  mark  ;  but  at  every  bay,  creek,  or  liarboi', 
..   ijl),f  Vi'sH""*' otherwise  speeially  provided  for  iu  this  treaty,  such  3  luariue  miles  shall  bo 


vi'.in::' 
181-1" 

»g  (li>- 
he  tev- 
e  theii 
uestioii 
>  use  of 

zed  and 
iipal  dn- 

-Bvitisli 

ane  dot 
sc  of  the 
Anu'ricnu 
I'oWowin;; 
>i\\  bountl- 


fie 


e  same  ii< 

iuu;  tbi'iii 

terms  ;i 

,  aud  til' 

uuhMUiii 


tied  in  li'-'l 


measurod  seaward  from  a  straight  lino  drawn  across  the  bay,  creek,  or  harbor,  iu  the 
|iart  ut'iirest  the  entrance  at  the  first  point  where  the  width  does  not  exceed  len 
brine  niih's. 


le  atU'iitinl 

i  seizai-es 

the  claim 

lericau  t\: 


By  this  simple  British  process  the  3  miles  mentioned  in  the  treaty  of 
1818  is  nearly  doubled  and  extende<l  to  5  miles  from  either  shore  at 
e  entrance  or  along  the  bays  indenting  the  coast.    It  needs  no  cont- 
ent to  show  that  this  provision  is  not  an  execution  of  the  treaty  of 
[818,  but  is  making,  by  an  assumed  construction  or  otherwise,  a  new 

,    ii>B'"^"t'  entirely  different  dimensions  and  entirely  iu  the  interest  of  Iler 
ve  the  ii'M 

,  ..i.^Jt^sty  s  Government. 


tiou 


tbatlj 

Ibetwet-'i'l 
the  quest! 


ajesty' 

[But  this  is  not  all.    Tlie  "plenipotentiaries"  went  still  further  (not 
«ppiiig  at  nearly  doubling  the  area  of  British  municipal  dominion 


■I 

■M 


m 


mw 

iM 

m 

M 

20 


TMK    FISHEKIES   TKEATY. 


iiiciisiired  by  tlie  treaty  of  181.S),  ami  ajiictMl  tliat^iiiaiiy  of  (and  pcrhaiis 
all  the  valuable)  {iieat  bays,  mneli  more  than  10  iiiilo.s  in  width,  sjioiild 
be  foreveriiioie  included  in  Hritish  municipal  dominion,  and  tliiu  lor. 
everinore  no  American  fisherni.iu  shoidd  have  the  ri}j;ht  to  drop  n  lin,. 
or  cast  a  seine  therein. 

Tliese  j;reat  bodies  of  water,  thus  •/wen  uj)  to  the  Uritish,  are  ikiiikmI 
in  the  treaty  as   follows;    (1)  Tlu^    Jiaie    des    (.'haleurs;    (2)    U;iy  (it| 
Miramichi;    (IJ)  Eymont  Jiay;    (1)  St.  Ann's  J?ay;    ("))  Fortune  Bay; 
((5)  Sir  (3harles  Ilamilton  Sound  ;  (7)  l5arrin{jton  Jiay ;  (8)  ('hedaltiictoj 
Bay;  (0)  Mira  Bay;  (10)  Plaeentia  JJay  ;  (11)  St.  Mary's  Bay. 

These  agreements  contained  in  article  i  of  the  treaty,  as  has  been  sniil,  I 
really  cede  (so  far  as  the  United  States  are  concerned)  to  Great  Ihitain 
forever  tlie  eom[)lete  dominion  over  these  numerous  and,  for  tlsliin^  imi-j 
poses,  the  most  valuable  of  the  bays  alou<f  the  coasts  of  British  Noithl 
America,  and  exclude  forever  all  the  Ameiicau  lishin^  vessels  thercriom, 
except  for  the  limited  and  narrow  puri)oses  mentioned  in  the  treaty  iifj 
1818,  and  recoj^nizethat  by  forceof  the  treaty  of  1818  these  areandalwiiysj 
have  been  British  waters,  while  it  is  thought  by  the  comnuttee  that 
the  public  law  of  nations  these  same  waters  will  be  open  to  the  vesselJ 
of  all  other  countries  than  our  own,  unless  they,  too,  shall,  from  goiioros] 
ity  or  fear,  or  for  some  consideration,  renounce  their  right  to  iisetliej 
same. 

The  i)rinciple  on  which  this  article  is  formed  is  a  recognition  by  tlif 
United  States  of  the  municipal  and  territorial  sovereignty  of  Greaj 
Britain  in  and  over  all  the  other  bays,  etc.,  on  the  British  'Som 


nviity,  it  i 

tircly  witli 

ilie  OsJjerii 

fo  tlie  digt 

its  citizens 

HOi'ld.     Sii, 

jects  of  ]),„. 

Tlie  quesi 

fxei'oise  of  / 

sliores  of  a  ^ 

nVcof  natio 

cmii/iiittee  tl 

rt'.^inl  to  la 

staijccvs,  such 

'II  ymv  of  l^^.^ 

'*  politic  for 

I'l'imdaries  of 

nortliy  of  con 

m-  ill  hiUHl 

'■'"'it'  supj)ose 

I'f^'iO-,  of  the 

prifiiin,  Germ; 

I'w.v  far  indeed 

[tlie  llsheries  in 

I'mies.   It  ^v.,  J 


American  coast,  however  large,  in  which,  by  this  treaty,  our  citizt'iiB[f  „gjf  jj^,^. 


graiM 


are  to  be  admitted  to  tish,  exterior  to  a  line  3  miles  from  shore. 

The  article  in  terms  professes  to  delimit  the  BHti,sh  bays  menthm 
hi  the  treaty  of  1818,  and  as  it  mentions  eleven  such  bays  even  iiioi 
than  10  miles  wide,  and  some  of  which  are  20  or  more  miles  wide 
follows  that  the  British  contention  of  municipal  dominion  over  all  bay| 
without  regard  to  width,  is  acted  upon,  and  that  the  right  of  AuuM'iLiii 
to  fish  in  the  few  other  wide  bays  not  mentioned  is  a  grant  l>yt 
British  Government. 

If  the  Bale  de  Chaleurs  is  a  now  British  bay,  so  also  must  be  tlioit 
of  Fundy  and  all  the  rest.    But  if  it  be  suggested  that  the  "pleiiiiioti 
tiaries"  renounced  the  right  of  fishing  in  these  bays  as  public  WiittBj,(,,,  ^.^ 
(for  which  no  hint  appears  in  the  treaty)  in  consideration  of  ^"I'P^'Mcimjition 
advantages  gained  to  the  United  States  by  other  provisions  ot  t^yj^.j. 


""',etc.,insi(lo| 
•^Pective  i,ow( 
ons  not  settlec 

'f 'ler  own  eouiji 
Such  regulatil 

•lent  for  comi 

rs'it  Britain ; 

'stj'ig  over  baj 
S  and  for  a 

''"'"ff  vessels  tc 


Tin:  Fisur.uiE*  tui:atv. 


21 


treaty,  it  is,  the  committt'o  thinks,  ecinally  objectionublo ;  and  this  en- 
tirely without  regard  to  any  present  praiitieal  vahio  or  want  of  value  of 
ilu'  llsheries  therein.  Jt  is  not  thouj;ht  by  the  committee  to  be  suitable 
to  the  (lij;nity  or  interests  of  tiie  United  States  to  renounce  the  right  of 
its  citizens  to  pursue  business  in  any  i)art  of  the  i)ublic  waters  of  the 
world.  Such  rights,  the  (iomniittee  thinks,  should  neither  be  the  sub- 
jects of  ])urchase,  sale,  barter,  nor  gitt. 

The  question  of  the  extent  of  territorial  (b)minion,  as  it  resi)ects  the 
t'xcrcise  of  fishing  rights  in  bays  niore  than  0  mihjs  wide  indenting  the 
slioios  of  a  country,  uiust  of  course  be  determined  by  tiie  law  and  prac- 
tice of  nations  as  they  existed  in  the  year  1818,  at  which  time,  as  the 
lonunittee  thinks,  the  3-miles  limit:  from  shores  was  recognized  without 
rt';::utl  to  large  iiulenting  bays,  except  under  very  peculiar  circum- 
stances,  such  as  the  ])res(!riptive  exercise  of  dominion,  etc.     ^Vhetller, 
ill  view  of  recent  inventions  in  the  implements  of  warfare,  it  may  not 
be  politic;  for  maritime  nations  to  agree  upon  an  enlargement  of  the 
lioimdaries  of  their  territorial  donnniou  seaward   is  a  question  well 
worthy  of  consideration,  but  it  has  no  place  in  respect  of  the  matters 
now  ill  hand. 
Tlie  sui)i)osed  precedent  for  such  agreements  as  are  set  up  in  this 
treaty,  of  the  convention  of  1882  (Ex.  Doc.  113,  p.  18),  between  Great 
Britain,  Gernn\ny,  Ijelgium,  Denmark,  France,  and  the  Netherlands,  is 
by  tliBvery  far  indeed  from  being  such.     That  was  for  the  2>oUce  regulation  of 
f  Gvei»Wtlie  lisheries  in  the  North  Sea,  and  on  the  coasts  of  all  the  contracting 
>'()VtlB|iaities.   It  was  limited  to  live  years,  and  not  i)erpetual,  as  this  treaty  is. 
citi/A'ii^t  neither  granted  nor  renounced  any  right.    The  freedom  of  naviga- 
lioii,  etc.,  inside  the  3-mile  limit  was  reserved.    The  naval  vessels  of  the 
ijie)ifii»iieBesi)ective  powers  were  to  enforce  the  regulation.    For  serious  infrac- 
eu  uioiBions  not  settled  at  sea  the  offending  vessel  was  to  be  taken  to  a  port 
i  wi(U',Bflier  own  country  for  trial. 

alH'iyH  Such  regulations  as  these  just  cited  might  well  have  formed  a  pre- 

L.meiieiiiBe(lent  for  composing  the  differences  between  the  Uiuted  States  and 

ut  V^ytl^reat  Britain;  for,  first,  they  did  not  admit  territorial  dominion  as 

isting  over  hays  more  than  G  miles  wide,  but  conferred  it  for  the  time 

)e  the b»iiig  and  for  a  limited  purpose  ;  second,  they  recognized  the  rights  of 

Iknni'ottWliiiig  vessels  to  bo  considered  as  vessels  entitled  to  the  rights  of  all 

,\ic  wattBlier  vessels  bearing  the  flag  of  their  country,  without  regard  to  their 

sui'P^^Bcupation,  so  far  as  it  respected  every  thing  else  than  fishing  ;  third, 

us  of  'Beyphiced  the  administration  of  these  fishing  affairs  in  the  commanders 


,«! 


\l 


■Mil 

^ 


;'4i 


|-:::r' 


■it''' 


22 


tfm:  fisiikuikh  tukaty, 


of  national  vessels;  nnd,  fomtli,  they  in'ovided  tliat  an  accused  vessel 
sliouhl  be  taken  to  her  own  eoniitry  for  trial. 

The  contraHt  between  thia  North  Hea  fisheries  treaty,  to  whicli  (iivar 
Uritain  was  a  party,  and  the  one  now  before  the  Senate  is  vivid.  TIkv 
are  substantially  the  opposites  of  each  other  in  nearly  every  paiticiilar. 

Xor  does  the  treaty  now  before  the  Senate  bear  any  material  rcscin. 
blance  to  the  protocol  proposecl  by  Mr.  Seward  in  ISIKJ  (Ex.  I)o(!.  1|.'{,  p. 
17),  nor  to  the  schenn?  sent  by  Mr.  liayard  to  Mr.  Phelps  in  yovcinhci. 
1880  (lOx.  Doe.  113,  Fiftieth  Coufj^ress,  first  session,  p.  17). 

Tiie  fifth  article  of  the  tnnity,  declarin*;  that  the  treaty  shall  not  he 
construed  to  include  within  <!oninion  waters  any  interior  portions  of 
bays,  etc.,  that  "(!an  not  be  reached  from  the  sea  without  i)assinj;- with- 
in the  .'3  marine  miles  mentioned  in  Article  I  of  the  convention  of  Octo- 
ber 20,  181S,"  is  very  8weei)iny',  and  may  cover  a  g'reat  deal  more  tliaii 
the  mere  reading-  of  it  would  imply  to  one  uniustructed  in  the  nature  of 
the  northeastern  lands  and  waters,  with  their  deep  indentinj;  bays, 
their  many  islands  an«l  islets,  and  their  tremendous  tides,  the  rise  iiiid 
fall  of  which,  in  many  places,  change  the  aspects  of  nature  to  an  ast( 
ishinif  degree.     J5ut  it  is  purely  language  making  the  test  the  capacity  j 
of  j)rtS6/»^  within  3  miles  of  the  shore,  and  plainly  indicates  tiiat  imi 
matter  how  large  may  be  the  bay,  no  matter  how  wide  apart  niav  lii- 
its  headlands,  no  matter  how  deep  may  be  the  w^aters  between  sudi| 
headlands  at  high  tide,  if  the  ship-channel  to  it  at  low  tide  be  witiiiii 
3  miles  of  land  it  is  an  excluded  bay.  ' 


Having  now  seen  what  the  proposed  treaty  accomplishes  in  lesiK'ttj 
of  "delimitation,"  we  proceed  to  examine  its  provisions  in  lespect  on 
"what  American  vessels  engaged  in  fishing  on  the  high  seas  may  amy 
may  not  do  in  liritish  North  American  waters  ascertained,  enlar^iedj 
and  defined  as  before  stated,  and  in  the  i^orts  on  those  coasts. 

In  order  to  understand  more  clearly  tlie  disastrous  nature  of  wliat  th^ 
"plenipotentiaries"  have  agreed  to,  it  is  valuable  to  consider  and  agai 
sta^^^e  the  situation  of  atiairs  existing  in  1818,  and  to  which  the  treaty 
of  that  year  applies. 

Before  and  at  that  time  and  down  to  1830  no  American  vessel  of  (t«l 
kind  was  as  of  right  admitted  to  any  British  North  American  port,  auj 
no  rights  of  commerce  or  trade  existed  (with  the  few  exceptions  bofoij 
stated);  and,  reciprocally,  no  British  North  American   vessel  ofauj 


TIIK    riSUKKIKS    TUKATY. 


23 


kind,  fisliiiiy  or  otluT,  wasadmittiMl  to  ports  of  the  IJnitctl  States  otlu^'- 
wisi"!  tliiui  as  ail  act  of  iiiutuality  in  the  cases  stated.  Tlie  treaties  of 
17!>1  and  l.Sl.">  purposely  left  all  tliese  ports  and  all  tra«le  between 
jlritisli  North  America  and  the  llniteil  States  to  bi^  re;(nlated  according' 
to  the  particular  i)()llcy  of  each  nation.  Such  is  still  the  (jonditio'i  of 
tilings  so  far  as  any  treaty  obli<,'ation  iseoncorned,  exceptiii^jai'ticleL'!) 
Ill'  the  treaty  of  1S71. 

In  181S,  then,  no  Aintiiean  lishin^'"  vessel  or  any  other  American 
vessel  could  entei'a  port  onany  of  the  (;oastsof  IJritish  North  America, 
even  where  the  full  rij-ht  of  hshiuf;  inshore  existed.  And  the  treaty 
of  1818,  formed  on  that  basis,  was  not  intended  to,  and  it  did  not  in  any 
way,  touch  the  (piestion  (jf  any  trade  or  commercial  riyht  whatever,  and 
iif  course  made  no  distinction  in  those  rcsjjccts  \)otweon  lishinj;'  and 
other  American  vessels.  It  looke<l  and  spoke  only  in  ref^ard  to  the  fact 
of  the  renunciation  by  the  LInited  States  of  their  fishing  rij^hts  in  that 
pMit  <»f  the  territorial  waters  of  IJritish  North  America  named  in  the 
treaty,  and,  as  an  incipient  of  that  renuiKMation  and  as  an  incident  only, 
it  provided  that  American  lishinj;'  vessels  might  enter  those  renounced 
waters,  not  to  tish,  but  only  for  "  the  i)urposo  of  shelter  and  of  riipair- 
iiij;' damages  therein,  of  purchasing  wood,  and  obtaining  water;"  and 
(his  right  was  to  be  exercised  under  such  restrictions  as  should  be  nec- 
wsary  to  prevent  their  tishing,  etc.,  therein,  or  in  any  other  manner 
abusing  the  privileges  so  reserved  to  them. 

Those  words,  "in  any  nnmner  abusing  the  privilege  of  entry,"  clearly 
let'erred  to  the  then  existing  state  of  Jiritish  law  which  prevented  all 
trade  intercourse  by  foreign  vessels  with  the  provinces,  and  were  in" 
toiidod  to  authorize  such  action  on  the  i»art  of  (Jroat  Britain  as  should 
lie  Justly  necessary  to  prevent  violations  of  JJritish  navigation  and  com- 
mercial laws. 

But  in  the  course  of  years,  when  after  these  mutual  arrangements  of  a 
legislative  character  were  made,  the  business  and  tra<le  between  the 

iiited  States  and  British  North  America  developed,  the  British  North 
Americans,  like  their  fellows  in  I'^nglaud,  began  to  see  that  the  Ameri- 
tan  system  of  customs  laws  operated  to  the  advantage  of  American 
citizens  and  industries  and  unfavorably  to  Canadian  and  British  inter- 
ests. They  then  commenced,  and  have  since  steadily  continued  (except 
(luring  the  intervals  of  so-called  reciprocity,  under  the  treaties  of  1854 
iiud  1871),  a  systematic  and  persistent  course  of  hostile  legislation  and 
latlministration  under  the  pretext  of  enforcing  the  restrictions  of  the 


I'  ' ' 


m 


l:'^ 


24 


THE    FISHERIES   TREATY. 


II 


iJi 


treaty  of  181S,  well  calculated,  and  designed,  as  the  committee  thinks 
is  clear,  to  so  embarrass  and  harass  the  citizens  of  the;  United  States, 
engaged  in  the  legal  pursuit  of  fishing  on  the  high  seas  as  well  as  in 
the  lUitish  North  American  waters  reserved  to  them  by  the  treaties  of 
1783  and  1818,  as  to  drive  them  out  of  the  business,  and  so  to  leave  it  all 
in  British  hands,  or  else  to  induce  the  United  States,  by  such  a  conise 
of  unfriendly  and  even  outrageous  conduct,  to  allow  the  free  entry  of 
Canadian  fish  and  other  products  into  our  markets  as  the  price  of  tlii-ir 
fair  treatment  of  our  fishermen. 

Yet,  during  the  last  two  or  three  years  of  this  course  of  studied  in- 
justice and  of  outrage,  while  no  American  fishing  vessel,  even  bearing  a 
full  commercial  cliaracter  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  and  witii 
the  ilag  of  the  United  States  at  the  fore,  could  enter  a  port  of  Britisli 
Xorth  America  for  any  purpose  without  being  exposed  to  seizure  and 
forfeiture,  or  enter  a  British  Xorth  American  harbor  for  shelter  or  tn 
repair  damages  or  obtain  wood  and  water  without  being  subjected  to 
this  unjust  and  even  outrageous  treatment,  the  fishing  vessels  of  British 
North  America  could  lawfully  and  without  molestation  enter  any  har- 
bor or  port  of  the  United  States,  sell  or  transship  their  cargoes,  and  do 
ever}'  kind  of  trade,  and  depart  in  peace. 

This  condition  of  things  became  so  intolerable  that,  at  last,  the  remon- 
strances of  the  ICxecutive  became  vigorous  and  urgent,  and  on  the  .Stli 
of  December,  ISSO,  the  I'resident  sent  to  Congress  the  following  ini's- 
sage  on  the  subject : 

To  the  Sciutlv  tiiid  Hohhc  of  ItcprfsciilaUri'^  of  llic  Uiiilid  Sl(iti>< : 

I  transmit  hcnnvitli  n  lettor  fioiii  tlic  Secretary  of  State,  Avliich  is  accoiiiiianicd  Ky 
iho  corrcspondoiicc  in  relation  to  tlu'  rij;ht8  of  American  lisliernien  in  the  liritisJ! 
Xorth  American  waters,  and  comnicnd  to  your  ^avorable  consideration  the  sug<;estinii 
that  a  commission  he  antliorizod  hy  law  to  take  perpctuatinj^  i)toofs  of  the  losses  siiv 
taiued  during  the  past  year  by  American  iishormen,  owin;jj  to  their  unfriendly  ami 
unwarranted  treatment  by  the  local  authorities  of  the  maritime  provinces  of  tin' 
Dominion  of  Cjinada. 

I  may  have  occasion  hereaftia'  to  make  further  recommendations  during  the  prosem 
session  for  such  remedial  h,'<rislation  as  may  become  necessary  for  the  protection  ot 
the  rijfhts  of  our  citizeuu  en<j;aged  in  the  ojien-sea  iisheries  of  the  North  Atliiiitii 
waters. 


ExKCUTivK  Mansion-, 

]Vmhin<jU»t,  Vcremhir  S,  1^-6. 


(iUOVKU    t:U':\KLANli, 


Justly  infiuenced,  doubtless,  by  this  message  and  by  the  state  of  af 
fairs  shown  in  the  documents  iiccom]ianying  it  and  by  the  evidonoo 


THE    FISIIERIKS    TREATY. 


25 


liiiiks 
tiltos. 
as  ill 
ties  of 
c  it  all 
coni'si' 
iitry  (it 
)f  tlidv 

Xwi\  ill- 
!tiving  a 
nd  Nvitli 

Bvitisli 
:nre  uiul 
or  «>v  t(i 
ectod  to 
,f  British 

any  liiiv- 
s,  iuul  (Ui 

n'  reiiH'ii- 
n  the  <Stli 


ivuiji'  iiit^'^ 


taken  l)y,  ami  the  report  of  the  Senate  Coinniittee  on  Foreign  Kelations 
on  the  same  subject  made  on  the  19th  of  January,  1887  (Ivep.  Xo.  1G83, 
4Dth  Cong'.,  LM  sess.).  Congress  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  ])erlod  of 
negotiation  and  unavailing  remonstrance  had  })assed,and  with  almost  ab- 
solute unanimity  and  without  any  party  division  enacted  the  actof  ]\Iarch 
0,1887,  hereinbefore  mentioned,  by  which  the  duty  was  imposed  upon 
the  President  of  withdrawing  from  British  North  American  vessels,  etc., 
those  liberties  and  advantages  which  by  the  pre-existing  laws  they  were 
iMijoying  in  the  harbors  and  ports  of  the  United  States,  whenever  and 
as  often  as  it  should  appear  to  him  that  similar  rights  and  liberties  were 
denied  the  United  States  tishing  vessels,  etc.,  in  the  ports,  etc.,  of  Brit 
ish  North  America,  or  whenever  it  should  api)ear  to  him  that  American 
lishing  vessels  should  have  been  subjected  to  outrageous  or  unjusr 
treatment  in  the  exercise  oi  the  rights  secured  to  tlu m  by  the  treaty 
of  ISIS. 

All  that  remained  unprovided  for  according  to  the  sense  of  self- 
respect  and  of  just  policy  on  the  })art  of  the  United  States  was  to  ob- 
tain indemnity  from  the  l>ritish  Government  for  tlio  injuries  that  had 
thus  far  been  committed. 

Ill  view  of  this  state  of  affairs,  thus  brictly  ineiitioni'd,  we  coitii'  to 
consider  wliat  the  pro])osed  treaty  undertakes  to  i)rovi(le  in  regard  to 
American  vessels  engaged  in  fishing. 


•!  'if 


^;!i 


it 


5.  ■. 


,ji 


m 


|im)iuru.it  ''y 

Ic  losses  su'!- 
iriendly  and 
Jnces  of  tli'> 

Irotectioii  nt 

li-tli  Atlaiit:' 

,i.:vi;lani>. 


[tate  of  •'>'■ 
l3  evi*^^'"'-''-' ' 


The  lirst  clause  of  Article  X  provides  that  American  lishing  vessels 
tnitering  the  bays  or  harbors  referred  to  in  Article  I  shall  conform  to 
harbor  regulations  common  to  them  and  Canadian  lishing  vessids. 
This,  by  necessarj'  implication,  concedes  the  right  on  the  part  of  the 
Canadians  to  subject  Uiiited  States  lishing  vessels  resorting  to  a  Brit- 
ish North  American  bay  for  shelter  from  a  tempest,  to  the  municipal 
laws  of  Canada,  no  matter  how  far  different  those  regulations  may  be 
iVom  the  provision  in  the  treaty  of  1818  giving  to  the  liritisli  the  right 
[only  to  make  such  restrictions  as  should  be  necessary  in  prevent  an 
\abuse  of  the  irrivilege  of  entry  for  the  i)urpose  stated. 

This  clause  adopts  the  princi[»le  of  the  IJritish  contention  in  the  For- 
[tune  Bay  affair,  which  contention  was  that  American  vessels  in  Cana- 
[tliaii  waters,  under  either  the  treaty  of  1818  or  1871,  were  subjected  to  all 
jtlie  municipal  laws  of  that  country.  This  British  contention  was  suc- 
pssfiilly  resisted  by  Mr.  Evarts,  then  our  Secretary  of  State,  and  the 


26 


THE    FISIIEKIES    TREATY, 


II ' 


British  Goveiiiment  paid  an  indcnuiity  for  an  interference  with  our  fi.sh. 
ing  vessels  in  respect  of  their  being  engaged  in  fishing  in  those  Avater.s 
contrary  to  the  ninnicipal  statutes  of  Kewfonndhind. 

This  clause,  then,  gives  away  important  American  rights,  and  adonis 
the  principle  tliat  nnder  the  treaty  of  1818  American  fishing  vessels  are 
subject  to  the  full  force  of  foreign  municipal  law.  Dnt  this  clause  is.  in 
part  only,  (jualifled  by  the  next,  which  excuses  them  from  reporting,  en- 
tering, or  clearing  when  putting  into  such  bays  for  shelter  or  repairing; 
damages,  and  when  putting  into  the  same  ontskle  theUniifs  of  csfahlishcd 
ports  of  entry,  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  wood  or  obtaining  water, 
with  certain  exceptions  even  in  respect  of  that  excuse.  Hut  we  tliink 
it  nmy  be  safely  assumed  to  be  true  that  there  are  very  few,  if  iuiy, 
British  Xorth  American  bays  or  harbors  that  are  not  within  the  limits 
of  established  ports  of  entry,  for  doubtless  (which  is  tiie  case  in  tlie 
United  States)  the  Dominion  custon)S  laws  bring  every  part  of  the  sea- 
shore, and  all  its  bays  and  harbors,  within  the  customs  Hunts  of  soiiu- 
port  of  entry. 

This  modification,  then, "of  tlie  sweeping  ie(iuirement  of  the  lirsr 
clause  really  amounts  to  nothing,  and, indeed,  can  (if  it  does  not  already) 
by  .1  simple  legislative  or  administrative  act  of  the  Dominion  govern- 
ment bring  every  bay  and  harbor  and  every  part  of  the  coast  witliiii 
the  limits  of  established  ports  of  entry,  and  thus  again  completely  snr- 
render  the  fishing  vessels  of  the  United  States  to  every  commercial 
regulation  of  the  Dominion  government  which  operates  against  them. 
while  it  gives  them  almost  none  of  the  benefits  of  commercial  inter- 
course. 

The  next  clause,  also,  further  provides  that  American  fishing  vessels, 
when  in  these  bays  and  harbors  for  shelter,  etc.,  under  thetreaty  of  1818, 
shall  not  be  liable  for  harbor  dues,  etc.  This  is  a  mere  statement  ot 
what  results  from  the  treaty  of  1818,  for  it  has  no  application  to  these 
vessels  other  than  in  their  ])urely  fishing  character,  and  in  that  cliar-] 
acter  they  Avere  not  subjected  by  the  treaty  of  1818  to  any  such  ii 
position,  and  could  not  be,  for  none  of  them  were  necessary  to  prevent] 
their  fishing  or  to  prevent  their  smuggling. 

Article  X,  then,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  a  diminution  L.otead  of  an 
largement  of  the  rights  of  American  fishing  vessels  under  the  treaty  oil 
1818,  and  its  modilying  and  limiting  clauses  would  be  only  valuable  ml 
any  case  as  a  renunciation  by  (4reat  Britain  of  a  totally  unfounded  [ue'l 
tension. 


THE   FISIIERIKS    TREATY, 


27 


I-  M\- 
raters 

e\s  \\v(t 
ieis,  ill 
ny;,  en- 
paii'lny; 
thiishcd 
i;  water, 
re  think 
,  it'  any, 
\e  limits 
ic  iu  tlie 
L  tlie  sea- 
i  of  some 

the  iirst 

t  already) 

m  govoru- 

ast  within 

letely  sur- 

loaunerciiil 
inst  tlioui. 
cial  inter- 
Ill  ;j;  vessels. 
iatyoflSlS, 
■ateme.nt  of 
Ion  to  these 
that  chill- 
hy  such  iiii- 
to  prevent  i 

[nl  of  an  en- 
the  treaty  oil 
valuahUMii 
Ifouudeil  i>vej 


Article  XI  provides,  first,  that  Aniericaii  fishiii*;'  vessels  enterin^i;'  the 
ports,  etc.,  of  British  North  America  under  stress  of  weather  or  other 
(■((siiaUi/  may  niiload,  reload,  transship,  or  sell,  subject  to  customs  laws, 
all  lish  on  board,  when  such  unloading',  transshipment,  or  sale  is  made 
necesccssary  as  incidental  to  r(2)airs,  and  niay  replenish  outfits,  provis- 
ions, or  supplies  damaged  or  lo.st  by  disaster,  and  iu  ease  of  death  or 
sickness,  shall  be  allowed  all  needful  facilities,  including  the  shi[)ping 
of  a  crew. 

The  most  of  these  ])rovisions  are  already  clearly  covered  by  the 
treaty  of  1818,  and  all  of  them  are  covered  by  the  real  substance  ami 
spirit  of  the  arrangement  of  1830  ;  ami  in  respect  of  transshipment,  by 
article  29  of  the  treaty  of  1871.  They  are  much  nu)re  than  covered  by 
article  29  of  the  treaty  of  1871,  and  are,  iu  fact  and  etfecr,  a  voluntary 
abandonment  ou  the  part  of  the  United  States  of  the  rights  secured  in 
respect  of  the  transshipment  of  all  American  goods  and  merchandise 
luiiving  at  any  British  North  American  port.  That  article  uses  lau- 
gaage  of  the  most  comprehensive  character,  and  it  can  not  be  doubted 
that  under  it  a  Canadian  fishing  vessel  bringing  a  cargo  of  lish  from 
the  fishing-grounds  to  the  south  of  Nantucket,  or  from  any  other  place 
on  the  high  seas  or  any  British  waters,  to  the  ports  of  New  York,  Bos- 
ton, or  Portland,  would  be  entitled' to  land  them  and  transshi[)  them 
to  Canada  without  the  payment  of  any  duty,  and  it  is,  of  course, 
ecpially  clear  that  a  cargo  of  tisli  on  board  a  fishing  vessel  of  the  United 
States,  when  brought  from  the  fishing-grounds  of  the  high  seas  or  else- 
where to  any  British  North  American  port,  may,  in  like  manner,  be  en- 
tered and  transshipped  to  the  United  States  without  the  payment  of  duty. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  in  respect  of  the  clause  of  Article  Xt,  now 
under  consideration,  as  well  as  with  respect  of  the  clauses  hereinbefore 
considered,  that  the  Executive  in  negotiating  this  treaty  had  failed  to 
remember,  or  had  left  out  of  view,  what  the  present  rights  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States  already*  clearly  are  under  treaties  now  in  force,  and 
had  i)roceeded  upon  the  idea  that  every  right  that  the  United  States  is 
to  obtain  by  force  of  this  treaty  is  a  new  one,  and  is  granted  by  ller 
Majesty's  Government  in  consideration  of  the  reiumciation  to  her  of 
the  great  bodies  of  water  mentioned  in  the  earlier  articles  of  this  treaty 
and  of  all  commercial  rights  not  mentioned  in  this  treaty. 

The  next  paragraph  of  Article  XI  jn'ovides  that  UcenscH  in  British 
Xorth  American  ports  shall  be  granted  to  United  States  fishing  vessels 
itn  the  homeward  voyage  only,  to  purchase  such  provisions  and  sup[)lies 


\  Iff 


^fi.; 


*    ■!; 


:"■!' 


■,i   r  1! 


A 
I 

^     't 


28 


THE    FISlIEKfES    TREATY. 


as  are  ordinarily  fsold  to  trading  vessels,  but  sucli  provisions  shall  not 
be  obtained  by  barter  nor  pnrcliased  for  resale  or  trailie.  A  Canadinn 
tisliing  vessel,  on  whatever  voyage,  either  ontward  or  inward,  may  now 
lawfnlly  pnrchase  anything  in  a  port  of  the  United  States  that  any  cit- 
izen of  the  United  States  can  purchase,  and  on  the  same  terms,  witliout 
any  license  whatever,  and  may  dis])ose  of  any  such  purchase  without 
any  restriction.  Ilow  does  it  hap])en  that  the  United  States  are  to  buy, 
or  to  accept  as  an  act  of  generosity,  the  privilege  for  our  fishing  vos. 
sels  only  when  they  are  on  the  way  home,  sufficient  food  to  i)reserve 
them  from  starvation,  and  under  the  restriction  that,  being  without 
money,  they  must  not  obtain  it  by  the  exchnnge  either  of  lish-hooks  or 
wearing  api)arel  ? 

If  all  vessels  of  the  United  States,  including  those  engaged  in  tin.' 
occupation  of  catching  fish  on  the  high  seas,  are  now,  under  the  ar- 
rangements of  1830,  entitled  as  of  right  to  trade  in  British  Xortli 
American  ports,  this  clause  of  Article  XI  surrenders  nearly  the  whole 
of  such  right;  but  if,  under  the  arrangements  of  1830  or  otherwise, 
American  vessels  engaged  in  fishing  on  the  high  seas  have  no  right  of 
entry  into  British  North  American  ports  and  no  right  to  trade  therein, 
and  their  enjoyment  of  such  privileges  depends  upon  the  legislative 
policy  of  the  British  Dominioii  government,  can  the  United  States,  with 
the  least  sentiment  of  self-respect  or  with  the  least  regard  to  Ameri(;aii 
honor,  accept  such  a  i)rivilege,  so  limited,  without  on  the  other  hanil 
limiting  the  privileges  of  similar  Dominion  vessels  in  the  ports  of  the 
United  States'?       . 

The  United  States  is  under  no  treaty  obligation  whatever  in  res]^ect 
of  Dominion  fishing  or  any  other  vessels,  other  than  those  contained  in 
the  treaty  of  1871  and  all  those,  whatever  they  may  be,  are  strictly 
mutual.  The  committee  thinks  that  such  an  arrangement  as  is  here 
proposed,  and  which  necessarily'  implies  that  there  can  be  no  other  or 
greater  rights  of  American  vessels  than  those  here  described,  is  utterly 
inadmissible  unless  it  be  conceded  that  the  business  of  Amerieuii 
citizens  carried  on  on  the  high  seas,  hundreds  of  miles,  in  many  in- 
stances, from  British  North  American  coasts,  is  and  ought  to  be  sul)- 
jected  in  British  North  American  ports  to  the  free  will  and  pleasure  ot 
the  government  of  that  country  and  they  are  to  have  few  of  the  rights 
that,  by  the  common  intercourse  of  nations,  are  accorded  to  the  vessels 
of  all  counti'ies  as  acts  of  hospitality  and  humanity,  and  which  hy 
treaty  or  legislative  arrangements  of  nearly  all  nations  are  accorded  to 


THK    FISHERIES    TKEATV. 


29 


the  citizous  of  each  in  the  jiorts  of  the  other  ni)oii  i)eifc*cl]y  nuiliml  ami 
equal  tenii!*,  and  never  otherwise.  If  we  are  to  buy  hosi)itality  why 
should  we  not  sell  it  '  If  we  are  to  submit  to  British  regulations  of 
any  oceu[)ation  on  the  higii  seas  why  should  luit  Britisli  subjects  in  like 
manner  submit  to  a  simihir  control  or  exclusion  of  their  vessels  by  the 
(United  States  :' 

The  last  paragraph  of  Article  XI  ai)pears  to  be  thought  by  the  Presi- 
dent in  his  message  connunnicating  the  treaty  to  give  to  our  lishing 
vessels,  whether  on  the  homeward  voyage  or  not,  the  right  of  purchas- 
ing provisions  and  supplies  that  ordinarily  belongs  to  trading  vessels. 
In  this  the  committee  thinks  the  Tresident  is  much  mistaken.  Tlie 
lust  clause  of  the  paragraph  provides  for  licenses  to  purchase  supplies 
for  "the  homeward  voyage."  Jt  then  says  that  such  vessels,  having 
obtained  the  re<juired  licenses,  shall  also  be  accorded  upon  all  occasions 
.such  facilities  for  the  purchase  of  casual  or  needful  supplies  as  are 
ordinarily  accorded  to  trading  vessels. 

If  these  last-mentioned  words  have  the  meaning  imputed  to  them  by 
the  President,  the  words  immediately  preceding  are  absolutely  useless 
and  can  have  no  meaning  whatever ;  for  the  privilege,  if  expressed,  is 
iucludecl  within  those  afterwards  used,  and  as  the  two  phrases  stand  in 
nunediate  connection  with  each  other,  the  absurdity  of  their  insertion 
ill  such  a  case  could  not  possibly  have  been  overlooked  by  any  intelli- 
gent i)erson.  And  if  such  a  really  broad  provision  as  is  supposed  was 
intended  to  be  inserted  in  the  treat}* — one  which  was  intended  to  com- 
plotely  reverse  the  whole  British  pretension  upon  the  subject,  and  put 
our  lishing  vessels,  for  all  puri)oses  of  provisions  and  sup[>lies,  u[»on  the 
iSiune  footing  that  British  fishing  vessels  occupy  in  the  United  States 
and  that  American  trading  vessels  do  in  the  British  provinces — it  cer- 
tainly should,  and  probably  would,  have  been  stated  in  language  inca- 
pable of  sincere  misunderstanding. 

What  the  committee  thinks  it  means  is  that  an  American  lishing  ves- 
sel, having  obtained  a  license  to  purchase  provisions  on  and  for  the  home- 
ward voyage,  which  is  all  that  tlie  tirst  clause  says  or  describes,  viz, 
the  mere  act  of  obtaining  the  license  upon  ap])lication,  such  vessel, 
having  obtained  such  license,  shall,  upon  all  occasions  to  which  the 
lieoiise,  viz,  ui)on  all  occasions  of  the  homeward  voyage,  be  accorded 
facilities  for  doing  what  the  license  says  she  may.  This,  the  committee 
thinks,  is  the  literal  and  grammatical  construction  of  the  paragraph, 
and  all  that  can  be  extracted  from  it  by  the  or<liuary  principles  of  con- 
struction. 


K'    'Hi.'' 

m 


..  f 


'1 


t-  ll 


30 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


The  whole  of  this  article,  then,  us  it  .appears  to  the  coininittee,  is  oik' 
that  would  be  totally  derogatory  to  the  honor  and  interests  of  the  United 
States  to  agree  to.  The  committee  can  never  recommend  or  agree  tliat 
any  American  vessel  or  citizen  shall  receive  less  free  and  favonUilo 
treatment  in  any  foreign  port  whatever  than  is  accorded  to  the  vessels 
or  subjects  of  such  foreign  country  by  the  laws  and  policy  of  the  United 
States. 

The  subject  of  commercial  rights,  viewed  in  another  aspect,  compels 
the  inquiry  whether  it  is  not  entirely  absurd,  to  consider  that  if  a  British 
port  existed  on  the  southwestern  or  western  coast  of  Newfoundlaiul,  or 
ou  the  coast  of  Labrador,  in  respect  of  which,  by  the  treaty  of  1818, 
there  is  no  exclusion  of  American  vessels  from  territorial  waters,  such 
American  vessel  could,  so  far  as  the  treaty  of  1818  is  concerned,  enter 
such  port  for  all  and  the  same  purposes  that  any  other  Atnerican  ves- 
sel could,  and  that,  under  the  same  treaty,  50  miles  to  the  eastward  on 
the  southern  coast  of  Newfoundland,  the  very  same  American  vessel 
should  not  now  have  any  right  of  entry  for  the  same  puri)ose  i 

The  twelfth  article  of  the  treaty  under  consideration  provides  that— 

Fisliin;^  vessels  of  Canada  and  XewroniKlland  shall  have  on  the  Atlantie  coast  of 
the  United  States  all  the  privileges  reserved  and  secured  by  this  treaty  to  Uuitcil 
States  lishiug  vessels  in  the  aforesaid  waters  of  Canada  and  Newfoundland. 

If  this  article  was  intended  to  put  Canadian  fishing  vessels  upon  the 
same  footing  only  in  American  i)orts  and  waters  that  American  vessels 
are  put  in  Canadian  ports  and  waters,  there  would  be  mutuality  and 
equality,  however  narrow,  in  it.    But  this,  evidently,  was  not  the  pur- 
pose of  the  article,  for  it  is  evident  to  the  committee  that  Great  Britain 
would  not  have  consented  to  any  such  great  diminution  of  the  riglits  of 
her  fishing  vessels  as  they  now  exist  in  the  ports  and  waters  of  the  United 
States.     The  article  itself,  it  will  be  seen,  while  somewhat  obscure,  is 
still  drawn  in  such  a  way  as  only  to  be  aflirmative,  and  measures  privi 
leges,  reserved  and  secured,  and  says  nothing  of  conditions  and  liniitn- 
tions  and  nothing  of  ports,  etc.  But.  however  this  may  be,  the  committee 
does  not  think  that  it  comports  with  the  dignity  or  hospitality  of  the 
United  States  to  deny  to  British  Xorth  American  fishing  vessels  or 
those  of  any  other  country  the  ordinary  commercial  rights,  hospitali- 
ties, and  humanities  that  are  now  8up[>osed  to  be  nearly  universal  anioii^^ 
nations  calling  themselves  civilized,  unless,  urdmppily,  they  should  bo 
compelled  to  do  so  in  order  to  induce  just  and  hospitable  treatment  to 
the  vessels  of  our  own  country. 


THE    FISIIKRIES    TREATY, 


31 


The  tliirtet'iith  article  provides  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States  shall  make  rejiulatioiis  for  the  conspicuous  exhibition 
by  every  United  States  tishins;  vessel  of  its  ollicial  number  on  its  bows, 
and  that  no  vessel  shall  be  entitled  to  the  licenses  provided  in  the  treaty 
which  shall  fail  to  comply  with  su(!li  regulations.  This  provision  on  its 
face  and  taken  literally  applies  to  every  fishinji,'  vessel  of  the  United 
States,  whether  it  is  ever  to  enter  Canadian  waters  or  not,  and  it  is  a 
law  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  perpetual  application. 

But  assuming^,  however  mistaken  the  lanj^uage  may  have  l)een  for 
this  purpose,  that  it  is  only  to  apply  to  United  States  lishing  vessels 
entering  Canadian  ports  or  waters,  it  is  bad  enough,  for  it  proceeds 
upon  the  idea  that  vessels  of  the  United  States  engaged  in  the  ot^cupa- 
tion  of  fishing  are  to  be  put  nnder  a  ban  of  specilic  apparel  and  ai)- 
pearanee  that  is  not  imposed  upon  any  other  vessel. 

By  the  article  next  i)receding,  ami  already  commented  upon,  all 
Canadian  tishing  vessels  are  entitled  in  our  waters  to  all  the  privileges 
that  American  tishing  vessels  are  entitled  to  have  in  Canadian  waters 
so  far  as  it  regards  fishing,  at  least;  but  they  are  not  required  to  be 
thus  numbered  and  marked.  A  hundred  Canadian  fishing  vessels  may 
anchor  in  the  harbor  of  Gloucester,  the  great  tishing  port  of  the  United 
States,  and  be  entitled  to  every  right  and  every  hospitality  only  ui)Oii 
tlie  evidence  of  their  jiapers,  which  show  their  nationality  and  that  they 
are  not  pirates  ;  but  if  a  single  American  lisliing  vessel  appears  in  the 
liarbor  ot  Ualifax,  and  under  the  guns  of  Iler  Majesty's  forts,  she  can 
not  obtain  any  siipi)lies,  and  her  crew  may  starve  at  anchor  unless  upon 
each  bow  there  is  the  number  aOixed  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States.  Certainly,  American  fishermen  and,  we 
.sliould  hope,  every  other  American  citizen  would  not  be  proud  of  such 
a  distinction. 

The  fourteenth  article  of  the  treaty  deals  with  the  subject  of  penal- 
ties for  fishing  contrary  to  the  treaty  of  1818  and  the  first  article  of 
this  treaty,  and  thereby  the  United  States  are  to  agree  that  such 
penalty  may  extend  to  forfeiture,  etc.  This  is  a  singular  provision 
(and  probably  unique)  to  be  found  in  a  treaty  between  two  civilized 
nations,  the  general  tenor  of  whose  laws  and  the  general  social  nature 
of  whose  institutions  are  very  nearly  homogeneous. 

The  article  also  provides  for  a  limitation  or  an  exception,  as  the  case 
may  be,  of  the  legal  penalties  for  other  violations  of  fishery  rights,  three 
tlollars  a  ton. 


11 


t'l 


-m 


'    .fVy 


32 


THE    FISIIKRIES    TrtKATY. 


It  also  provides  that  the  procecdinj^'s  shall  be  siuninury  and  as  inex- 
pensive as  practiciible  and  that  the  trial  shall  be  at  the  place  of  duten. 
tion — the  i)lace  of  detention  boinj^  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  scizin};' 
anthorities,  for  without  special  provision  the  seized  vessel  could  be  tidcoii 
to  an}"  i)ort  in  tli(5  Dominion. 

It  then  provides  that  security  for  costs  shall  not  be  re(|uired  of  tlic 
defense  except  when  bail  is  oliered;  tliat  is  to  say,  that  when  a  vessel, 
with  all  its  furniture,  tackh,',  api)arel,  and  car^o,  and  its  captain  iiiid 
all  its  crew  are  seized  and  arrested  and  taken  to  a  i)lace  of  detention, 
security  for  costs  shall  not  be  re<|uired  until  the  arrested  citizen  of  the 
United  States  shall  desire  to  release  his  vessel  or  get  out  of  prison. 

This  certainly  must  be  only  what  every  just  {government  would  pro- 
vide of  itself.  The  same  may  be  said  of  all  the  other  provisions  of  this 
article.  They  are  all  identical  with  ov  analo<;ous  to  the  practice  of 
civilized  governments,  and  rest  ni)on  connnon  principles  of  good  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  Surely  they  should  need  no  treaty  contract  to 
bring  them  into  practice. 

The  fifteenth  article  of  the  treaty  is  open  and  coiulitional,  and  i»ro- 
vides  that  when  the  United  States  shall  admit  British  North  American 
tish  oil,  whale  oil,  seal  oil,  and  tish  of  all  kimls  except  lish  preserved  in 
oil,  free  of  customs  duties,  the  like  i>roducts  of  the  United  States  shall 
be  admitted  free  into  liritish  Xorth  America,  and  it  is  also  provided 
that  in  that  case  United  States  fishing  vessels  nniy  bo  entitled — not  to 
fish  in-shore  as  the  treaty  of  1871  provided  but — to  annual  licenses  for 
the  following  purposes  in  IJritish  North  America: 

(1)  The  i)urchase  of  provisions,  bait,  ice,  seins,  supplies,  etc. 

(2)  The  transshipment  of  catch. 

(3)  The  shipping  of  crews,  but  that  supplies  shall  not  be  obtained  by 
barter. 

(4)  And  that  the  like  privileges  sliall  be  continued  or  given  to  fishiiif;' 
vessels  of  British  Xorth  America  on  the  Atlantic  coast  of  the  United 
States. 

This  is  a  much  worse  "  reciprocity  "  than  existed  under  the  treaty 
of  1871,  for  while  the  treaty  of  1871  was  silent  in  respect  of  coinnierciii 
rights  in  either  country  and  left  the  matter  of  the  commercial  ri^ditsj 
standing  upon  mutual  legislative  regulations  of  th/i}  two  countries,  tin's 
treaty  limits  the  rights  of  the  fishing  vessels  to  certain  specified  foriiisj 
and  descriptions  of  commercial  privileges,  though  it  does  seem  toreco;;] 
nize  the  truth  tliat  would  otherwise  appear  to  have  been  forgotten 


THE   FISHERIES    TREATY. 


33 


the  negotiations,  that  Canadian  tinhing  vessels  now  have  coniniercial 
ri<>ht8  and  i)rivilege8  in  the  ])OTts  of  the  United  States. 

The  iini)olicy  of  the  general  provisions  of  article  15  have  already  been 
twice  fnlly  demonstrated,  and,  on  the  last  occasion  of  the  kind,  were 
unanimously  abrogated  by  Congress.  It  is  thought  needless  to  now 
go  into  a  discussion  of  that  subject. 

"We  have  thus  briefly  reviewed  all  the  substantial  articles  of  the 
treaty  of  positive  obligation  excei)ting  Article  IX,  which  declares  that 
nothing  in  the  treaty  shall  aifect  the  free  navigation  of  the  Strait  of 
Canso.  This  article  was  evidently  inserted  on  account  of  the  renunci- 
ation by  the  United  States  of  its  rights  in  Cliedabucto  Bay — this  bay 
being  at  the  southern  entrance  of  that  strait. 

It  is  almost  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  committee  is  tully  sensible  that 
in  many  nuitters  of  fair  ditt'erence  and  of  doubtful  consideration  between 
two  governments,  in  order  to  arrive  at  an  amicable  coinposition  thereof 
tliere  must  be  mutual  concessions,  and  that  the  sanu;  is  true  in  respect 
of  entering  into  uewengagemetits  for  commercial  and  other  intercourse 
between  nations,  in  order  that,  in  the  last-named  case,  perfect  mutuality 
ot"  right  and  ])rivilege  may  be  had  in  respect  of  the  same  matters;  but 
tbe  committee  does  not  think  that  the  ]iroposed  treaty  can  be  justifled 
in  this  way. 

This  idea  of  concession  was  doubtless  the  ground  and  guide  upon 
which  the  treaty  of  1818  was  founded.     At  the  time  of  tluit  treaty  the 
United  States  claimed  (and  justly  fis  the  committee  thinks)  that  the 
lishing  rights  recognized  by  the  treaty  of  ^783  on  all  the  shores  of  Brit- 
ish iforth  America  were  property  rights  and  that  they  were  not  lost  by 
the  war  of  1812,  and  that  after  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1814,  which  made 
no  mention  of  the  subject,  those  rights  existed  with  all  their  original 
force. 
The    British  Government  insisted  upon  the  contrary  and  that  the 
lie  Unitod  ■riffht  of   citizens  of  the  United    States  to   ftsh    in  any  British  North 
American  waters  had  been  entirely  lost.    This  led  to  a  partition  of  the 
the  ticivty  ■disputed  territory — whether  wise  or  unwise  is  immaterial  to  the  present 
onuuorcialBquostion — but  in  making  this  settlement  the  contracting  parties  had 
cial  vi^'htsBeviiU'utly  in  view  the  then  understood  law  of  nations,  that  territorial 
ntvies,  tliisBwiiters  only  extended  to  three  miles  from  the  shore;  and  they  also  had 
in  view  the  then  existing  state  of  treaty  and  legal  relations  between 
reat  Britain  and  the  Uiuted  States  in  respect  of  intercourse  between 
e  British  North  American  Provinces  and  this  countrj^,  and  the  treaty 
S.  Mis.  109 3 


nox- 
L'ten- 
izlnp; 
aUt'u 

)1"  tht- 
ressfl, 
in  aui\ 
"Utiou, 
of  the 

«i0U. 

lid  pvo- 
,  of  this 
ictice  oi 
;o()d  ud- 
itract  to 

and  pvo 
Vmevicau 
served  in 
Lites  shiill 
U'ovUled 
— not  to 
emcfi  I'ov 


e 


ice 


)V;\inodhy 
1  to  lishius; 


titled  fovnisl 
im  to  veco?j 
lorgottou  ill] 


r^'t- 


34 


TTfE    FISHKRIES    TKKATY. 


provitlcil'  ill  (tlear  terms  when',  in  Biitish  wattMs,  Ciiilcd  Stiifcs  lislu-i 
iiKMi  lui^lit  fisli  jiiid  wliere  tliey  nii<;lit  not. 

The  only  iK)Hsil)lo  quostion  tlisit  could  fuiily  arise  mulcr  the  treiity  ol 
l.SLS  WHS  tlie  <inestioii  what  was  a  Uiitish  bay.  liut  the  question,  as  ^ 
practical  one,  has  l)een  in  all  the  sixty-nino  years  since  the  inakinjr  of 
tliat  treaty  of  little  or  no  a(u;onnt;  for,  so  far  as  is  known,  the  only 
seizure  of  an  Ann  lican  vessel  by  the  IJritish  authorities  for  tisliind 
more  than  'i  miles  from  the  sliore  in  a  bay  more  than  (»  miles  wi(l(>  was 
the  seizure  of  the  ]Vashinf}foH,  in  1.S4.'),  and  in  that  (!ase,  as  has  hccn 
belore  state»l,  the  international  unii»ire  decided  the  seizure  to  have 
been  an  illegal  and  unjust  one. 

What  American  tishernien  standiiij;"  in  all  other  respects  on  the 
footing- of  other  Americans  eiijuaged  in  business  on  the  sea,  nii},dit  do 
in  their  cliaia(!t"r  ((s  JiKli<'rmi'n  in  the  territorial  waters  and  harbors  of 
iJritish  North  Aineiica  was  clearly  stated,  and  in  lanf,'naj?e  that  would 
seem  to  have  been  incapable  of  sincere  misunderstan«liiij>;. 

The  whole  of  the  substance  of  the  present  state  of  the  ditliculty  and 
discord  has  arisen  from  the  course  of  the  British  and  Caiuulian  legisla- 
tion and  administration,  directed  against  the  vessels  and  fishermen  of 
the  United  States  in  respect  of  their  coming:  into  British  North  Amcii- 
can  ports  or  harl)ors  or  within  three  miles  of  their  shores,  either  under 
treaty  rijjhts  or  commercial  rights. 

In  view  of  the  plain  history  of  these  transactions  and  of  the  matters 
hereinbefoie  stated,  it  does  not  seem  to  the  committee  that  the  existiiij; 
matters  of  dithcuUy  are  subjects  for  treaty  negotiation;  and  sueli  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  ojiinioii  of  the  Senate  by  its  action  and  by  the 
remarks  of  many  of  its  members  of  both  political  parties  and  by  the 
action  of  the  House  of  Representatives  upon  and  in  the  passage  of  the 
act  of  March  3, 1887,  and  its  approval  by  the  President. 

No  new  event  or  situation  of  aifairs  has  aiisen  since  that  time,  and 
the  only  real  questions  subsisting  between  the  two  countries  in  respect 
of  the  subject  were  those  of  reclamations  by  the  United  States  for  out 
rages  upon  its  citizens,  for  which  this  treaty  makes  no  provision,  ami  j 
the  question  of  whether  the  mutual  arrangements  of  1830  and  thej 
mutual  rights  of  transit  under  the  treaty  of  1871  shall  continue. 

This  treaty  makes  no  provision  for  an  indemnity.    It  does  make  pro- 
vision for  establishing  forever  the  full  measure  and  limit  of  rights  amlj 
privileges  to  be  enjoyed  by  fishing  vessels  of  the  United  States,  what- 
ever other  character  they  may  also  have  and  appear  in,  in  the  ports! 
and  waters  of  British  North  America,  and  it  thus  surrenders  rights 


THE    FISHERIKS    TIIKATY. 


;J5 


ity  of 

I,  lis  a 


'  only 

■ 

isliiiiif 

■ 

lo  was 

I 

s  been 

■ 

»  luivc 

■ 

on  the 

ijilit  do 
rlioi's  of 
t  woiild 

ilty  ami 
I  U'fl'islii- 
'Ttnou  of 
li  Amoii- 
ler  nndoi' 

inattevs 
existiiisi 
sucli  a|i- 
1(1  by  ilu' 
il  by  tlu' 
m'eof  tlic 

time,  iuul 
n  respect 
>s  for  out 
isioii,  ami  | 

ami  tliel 
lie. 

lake  pro- 1 
kglitsand 
[tes,  what- 

the  ports 
lers  rights! 


niid  jtriviK'^ioa  that  the  coinmittoo  thinks  aro  (ih-arly  and  iMlly  ostah- 
lishod  under  the  arran^'onH'nt.s  of  IS.'JO,  and  tlio  treaty  of  ISTl,  or,  if 
such  riyiits  and  priviU'j^ea  can  bo  chiiini'd  not  to  exist  in  these  re- 
spects, tliat  it  provi«les,  as  of  original  and  perpetual  cn^'au'enient, 
for  the  exehision  of  tiio  Anieriean  vessels  enji!ij;ed  in  a  par{ie,nlar 
occupation  on  the  high  seas  from  the  ordinary  hninanities  and  hos- 
pitalities  ami  e(pialities  enjoyed  in  tlie  British  Nortii  American  ports 
l»y  all  other  vessels  of  the  United  States,  ami,  so  far  as  is  known, 
all  the  vessels  of  every  character  of  every  other  country,  while  at 
the  same  time  British  North  American  vessels  en;4'a<i:e(l  in  th(>i  same 
occupation  and  in  the  same  seas  have,  without  restraint,  every  riyht 
and  facility  of  commerce,  hospitality,  and  immunity  in  all  rln.'  ports  of 
the  United  States.  To  enter  into  such  an  eiifiaycmenf,  liitally  ami  per- 
petually, as  this,  the  committee  thinks  contrary  to  thedij;iuty  and  just 
interests  of  the  United  States. 

The  committee  rejjrets  that  these  conitlusions  do  not  meet  the  ap- 
proval of  all  its  members.  It  had  hoped,  as  has  been  the  case  <;'cnerally 
hitherto,  that  no  influences  or  divisictns  of  a  nature  coincident  with  the 
lines  of  political  parties  would  enter  into  a  matter  of  this  character, 
and  that,  as  was  the  case  only  a  little  more  than  a  year  a<>'o,  all  Senators 
of  all  political  parties  would  unite  in  standing  lirndy  in  the  artitmie  taken 
ill  the  winter  of  l.SS0-'87  and  culminating  in  the  act  of  March  :'>,  1887, 
and  in  decdining,  at  whatever  cost,  to  enter  into  any  new  engagements 
with  the  British  Government  that  should  leave  any  American  cit.'  ,en, 
enuaged  in  whatever  occupation  or  business,  deprived  of  any  right  or 
privilege,  other  than  tisiiing,  in  any  British  Xnrth  American  or  other 
waters,  that  is  or  may  be  granted  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  en- 
ifaged  in  any  other  occupation,  and  that  have  been  and  are  fully  and 
freely  gi-anted  by  the  United  States  to  every  British  subject,  v.iiatever 
may  be  his  occupation.  . 


The  committee  thinks  it  due  to  the  Senate  to  state  that,  ct)ntrary  (as 
it  believes)  to  the  universal  previous  practice  of  the  Executive  in  con- 
nection with  the  consideration  of  treaties  when  the  Senate  has  asked  for 
all  the  papers  and  information  in  detail  concerning  the  progress  of  the 
negotiations,  theExecutive-has  not  thought  it  for  the  "  public  interest," 
j  in  this  instance,  to  communicate  all  such  papers  and  such  detailed  infor- 
mation to  the  Senate,  although  the  Senate  requested  it;  and  it  was  stated 
[in  reply  to  the  resolution  of  request  that  the  deliberations  of  the  pleni- 


'4 


( 1)1 
•'.  '1,1 

i  % 


,  '■   ■■■:!( 


lllp^ 


mm 


36 


THE    FISIIKKIKS    TKKATY. 


i 


l)otoiitinri(»R  woj'o  in  coiilUU'iK'o,  and  "tliat  only  rpsnltH  .should  he  ;iii. 
nuunc.cd  and  su(;li  otluT  nuittcrH  as  tlicjoint  protocolistH  Mlionid  .si;;ii  m,. 
der  tlio  direction  of  tlun  plcnipotcntiarii's." 

It  is,  however,  stated  that  every  jioint  snbniitled  toeonfereneo  is  (cov- 
ered by  i)apers  already  in  possession  of  the  Senate,  exeeptiiij,'  thciiucs. 
tion  of  danni^es  sustained  by  onr  lislierinen,  and  which,  it  is  siiifod. 
was  met  by  a  connter<!laiin  tor  damages  to  IJiitish  vessels  in  the  I'xln. 
ing  Sea.     It  is  then  added  that — 

To  flic  tlis(.T('tioii  iiiid  cdiiddl  of'flit'  Kxcciifivo  art'  intriistt-d  tlic  iiiitiution  iinn  co!! 
(liK't  ol'tlio  iic;;()liiiliriii  ul' trraticH,  and  without  tlio  ;;nai':iiit,v  of  iiMitual  and  iiii|ili(it 
conlidfuco  IjoIwcjmi   tlio  iigcnt«,  ut'udtiutionH   for  the  voliinliiiy  adjiiMtnuril  of  mmiI 
qucHtions  in  controvt  rsy  behvet'ii  niitiouH  could  not  lioiMliilly  Im  onti'icd  n|Mih. 

It  thns  appears  to  be  claimed  by  the  I<^xeentive  that  the  Senate,  will). 
out  whose  advice  and  consent  no  treaty  can  be  (loinilnde*!,  has  no  rio'ht  to 
be  informed,  confidentially,  of  the  coarse  of  ne{»()tiationa  ami  diseu.ssion.s 
and  the  various  proi>ositions  and  aroiiments  pro  and  con  aiisin<>-  in  tlie 
iicji'otiation  of  a  treaty.  The  committee  feels  it  to  be  their  duty  to  pro- 
test against  any  such  assumption.  It  believes  that  such  a  claim  is  (!oii. 
trary  to  the  essential  nature  of  the  constitutional  relations  between  tlio 
President  and  the  Senate  on  such  subjects,  and  that  it  is  the  reverse  of 
the  continuous  i)ractice  in  such  nujtters  from  the  commencement  of  tLo 
Government  to  this  time. 

The  principal  points  of  the  treaty,  etc.,  that  have  been  considered  by 
the  committee  in  the  foregoing  statement  an<l  discussion  may  be  siiiu- 
uiarized  substantially  as  follows: 

SUMMARY. 

I.  The  United  States  recognize  as  British  territory  and  renounce  for- 
ever all  claim  of  independent  right  in  all  the  great  bays  along  the  Brit- 
ish North  American  coasts,  named  in  the  treaty,  and  admit  that  all  such 
bays  form  a  part  of  and  are  within  British  territorial  sovereignty"  and 
jurisdiction. 

II.  Of  the  few  of  such  great  bays  that  are  left  to  be  visited  by  Amer- 
ican fisherman  the  larger  part  are  understood  to  be  valueless,  and  some  I 
of  them  are  subject  to  French  fishery  rights  older  than  our  own,  iftlievj 
are  British  bays. 

III.  If  bay  fishing  is  not  profitable  now  it  may  be  in  the  future. 

IV.  Whether  profitable  or  not,  the  United  States  ought  not  to  give! 
up,  upon  any  consideration  whatever,  the  right  of  its  vessels  of  eveijj 
character  to  visit  and  carry  on  business  in  any  part  of  the  public  seas, 


TlIK    FIHHliUlIvS    TJiKATV. 


37 


by  Amor- 

and  some 

,vn,it'tliey 


^'.  Tim  treaty  HiirnMnlors  tlio  ('111 i 111  iiiid  rij^^lit  of  llir  Mnitt'd  States, 
which  lias  Ixhmi  actt^d  upon  and  cxcniisod  for  now  iiioic  than  a  (tcntury, 
of  its  v«'.ss»'Ih  cnyaycd  in  lishin^'  or  other  o(',<'ni)atuni.s  to  visit  and  carry 
on  their  business  in  tlu'se  };reat  bays,  ami  the  pi-iiiciple  oC  which  claim 
and  rijflit  has  once  Iteen  soiiMnnly  (h'(!id«'d  a;;ainst  (Jreat  Ibitiin  by  a 
trilnmal  or;i;ani/ed  under  a  treaty  with  that  (lovernnient. 

\'I.  TIh*  new  area  ofdcliiuination  desiuibed  in  the  treaty  greatly  in- 
creases the  danger  of  our  lislieiineii  unintentionally  invadiii};  prohiltited 
wiiters,  and  thereby  exposin;,'  them  to  stMznres  ami  penalties. 

\'ll.  The  treaty, by  its  tifth  artl(de,  renounces  any  riyht  of  the  Tnited 
States  in  any  bay, etc.,  however  lar;^'e,  that  '^(Nin  not  Iteresiched  fVoni  the 
scii  without  fxissiufi  within  the  M  marine  miles  mentiom'd  in  artic-lc  I  of 
the  cointMition  of  October  L'O,  ISlS,"  thus  exclndinjjf  vessels  of  the  LTiiite<l 
States  fr(tm  all  wateis,  however  extensive,  and  the  distance  between 
whose  headlands  is  however  ;;reat,  the  sailin^^  channel  to  whii-h  may 
liapi)en  to  be  within  ;J  miles  of  the  shore. 

^'lll.  The  treaty  is  a  complete  surrender  of  any  claim  of  a  n^lit  now 
cxistinji'  either  niidtr  the  treaty  of  ITiS;;,  the  treaty  of  IfS-lH,  thi^  acts  of 
Conjii'ess  and  the  Uritish  orders  in  council  of  is;?()j  or  the  twenty-ninth 
article  of  the  treaty  of  ISTl,  for  vess««l.s  of  the  United  States  tus'iiAvd 
ill  lishii)};  iinywhere  on  tiie  hi^h  seas,  ;i,i,d  even  hiiviuj;'  a  <;oiumei"(!ial 
(liiiractiT  also,  to  enter  any  port  of  British  North  America  for  any  com- 
iiienaal  purpose  whatever,  and  i)uts  in  tlie  jdace  of  these  clear  rij^hts, 
which,  in  resi)ect  ot  British  fishin^i-  vesse's,  exist  in  the  Ignited  States 
to  the  fullest  extent,  jL-reatly  restricted  and  conditional  rights  as  arising 
solely  from  a  iiresent  grant  of  Great  Britain. 

IX.  It  liiiids  th(i  United  States  to  be  content  with  whatever  is  given 
by  this  treaty  as  the  full  measure  of  its  rights,  and  to  be  content  with 
it  forever,  or  until  greater  lu)spitality  and  freedom  ol'  intercourse  can 
btM)btained  by  further  concessions  or  considerations  on  our  part. 

X.  In  the  face  of  all  this  it  leaves  British  North  American  fishing 
[vessels  jmssessed  of  all  commercial  rights  in  all  the  ports  and  waters  of 
I  the  I'nited  States. 

XI.  Whatever  privileges  of  commerce,  hos[)itality,  or  humanity  are 
Itliiis  provided  for  in  the  treaty  arc  to  be  obtained  only  upon  (condition 
Itlmt  no  fishing  vessel  of  the  United  States  shall  reiseive  any  of  them 
[iiiik'ss  such  fishing  vessel  shall,  under  regulations  of  the  Secretary  of 
[the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  be  bramled  with  an  ollicial  number 

oil  each  bow,  and  that  such  regulation  shall,  before  they  become  effectual, 
|)e  communicated  to  Her  Majesty's  (iovernmeut. 


»;! 


n 


ii 


hi 


'I 


J* 


38 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


XII.  It  provides  that  general,  and  even  then,  iinicli  liniitc d,  coin 
mei'cial  rights  and  rights  of  transshipment,  as  mentioned  in  article 
fifteen,  sliall  be  obtained  only  at  the  price  of  exempting  all  Canadinu 
fishery  products  from  onr  onstoni  duties. 

XIII.  Its  provisions  eoncerning  the  executive  and  judicial  treatine:it 
of  Anicricui  vessels  and  fisiiernieu  that  may  be  seized  or  arrested  for 
supposed  illegal  conduct  are,  to  nudie  the  most  of  them,  nothing  other 
and  i)robabiy  something  less,  than  a  statement  of  what  the  laws  ami 
conduct  of  any  administration  of  every  government  professing  to  be 
civilized  should  adoi)t  and  exercise  as  an  act  of  duty  and  justice. 

XIV.  Instead  of  diniinishing  sources  of  irritation  and  causes  of  *,iif. 
ficulty,  dittei'eut  iuteri)retations  and  disputes,  it  will,  the  comi^iittee 
thinks,  very  largely  increase  them. 

Various  other  suggestions  adverse  to  the  wisdom  of  ratifying  this 
treaty  migiit  easily  be  made,  but  the  committee  does  not  think  it  nec- 
essary to  go  into  them. 


The  committee  can  not  but  hope,  that  if  these  ill-advised  negotiations, 
which,  as  is  known  to  all  the  worl«l,  can  noti)roperly  commit  the  United 
States  in  any  degree  until  they  shall  have  received  the  constitutional 
assent  of  the  Senate,  shall  fail  to  nieet  the  approval  of  this  body,  Her 
]\Iajesty's  Government  will  take  measuies  to  secur*^  justice  aiul  fair 
treatment  in  her  Xorth  American  dominions  to  American  vessels  and 
American  citizens,  in  all  res[)ects  and  under  all  circumstances,  and 
that  that  Government  will  see  the  justice  and  i)roi)riety  of  according 
to  American  vessels  engaged  in  the  business  of  fishing  all  the  com- 
inercial  rights  and  facilities  in  her  Xorth  Auierican  i)orts  that  are  so 
freely  J'nd  cheerfully  accorded  to  her  own  in  the  ])orts  of  the  United 
States,  an<l  that  thus  the  friendship  and  good  feeling  whicli  ought  to 
exist  between  neighboring  nation;^  may  be  finally  established  and  se- 
cured. 

John  Shermax. 

Geo.  F.  Edmunds. 

Wm.  r.  Frye. 

Wm.  M.  Evarts. 

J.  N.  DoLPii. 
May  7,  1888. 


t      ;■  '..r\ 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MINORITY  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OX  FOREIGN 

RELATIONS 


ijs'ljL 


i 


%.  : 


U1M)\    TIIK 


Treaty  signed  on  the  loth  February,  18S8,  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the 
United  UStates  and  Great  Britain,  dissenting  from  the  report  of  the 
majority  of  that  eommittee,  ichich  reeommends  that  the  ISenate  refuse  to 
advise  and  consent  to  the  raiijication  <tf  said  treaty. 


The  minority  of  the  Cominittee  on  Foreign  Relations  dissent  from 
tbe  report  of  the  majority  recommending"  the  rejection  of  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain  dated  Febrnnry  15,  188S,  and  snbinitted  to  the 
Senate  for  its  consideration,  and  present  the  following"  as  their  princi- 
pal reasons  for  their  dissent : 

Two  objections  to  this  treaty  were  stated  in  connnittee. 

(1)  That  it  had  been  negotiated  and  signed  by  persons  who  were  not 
duly  empowered,  ninler  the  Constitntion  and  laws  of  the  United  States, 

Itocondnct  and  eonclnde  a  tieaty. 

[2)  That  the  treaty,  on  its   merits,  should    not  be   rititied   by  the 
iSeuiite. 

To  meet  the  tirst  objecjtion,  a  member  of  tlie  minority  of  the  com- 
luiittee  introduced  the  following"  resolution  : 

Resolred,  That  the  treaty  sinm^d   by  Tliom  is  F.  Bayard.  William  Fj.  Putnam,  and 

iJames  15.  Anj^ell,  as  plciiipotcntiarieH  of  the  L'liited  States,  in  conjunction  with  the 

iBritiHli  idcnipotontiarit's,  on  the  loth  day  of  February,  IS'^S,  and  sent  t<i  the  Senate 

|bj  the  President  as  a  treaty  duly  negotiated,  for  the  consideration  and  action  of  the 

«iiate,  is  properly  authenticated  as  a  treaty  nuide  by  the  President  of  the  United 

Btates,  acting  within  his  coustitutional  powers,  and  is  lawful  ami  valid  as  a  negotia- 


m 


«" 

!)'ii 


lion. 


m 


39 


40 


THE    FISHERIES   TREATY. 


Tlifi  purpose  of  this  resolution  was  to  bring  before  the  Senate,  in  dis- 
tiuct  form,  the  recommendation  of  the  committee  as  to  the  merits  of  the 
treaty,  ai)art  from  any  collateral  matter  relating  to  the  negotiation  of 
the  instrun)ent. 

In  committee,  this  resolntion  was  laid  upon  the  table,  and  thor(^l)yanv 
recommendation  as  to  the  question  it  presents,  in  answer  to  the  liist 
objection  to  the  treaty,  as  above  state<l,  was  avoided. 

The  minority  of  the  committee  hold  that  it  is  entirely  comi)etent  for  a 
majority  in  the  Senate  to  declare  Ibr  treaty  has  l)een  negotiated  and 

signed  in  a  proper  manner,  and  by  ^ons  duly  qualified,  or  otherwise  to 
return  it  to  the  President  as  a  paper  that  does  not  call  into  exercise  the 
powers  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Senate  ui)on  the  question  of  its  ratiticiition 
by  them.  And,  if  a  majority  in  the  Senate  shall  declare  that  the  tveaty 
is  sent  to  the  Senate  by  the  President  and  is  duly  signed  and  autluMiti- 
cated,  or  if  no  objection  to  it  on  that  ground  is  made,  then  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  treaty  is  in  order  and  should  be  consi<lered  by  the  Senate. 

It  is  not  dis])nted,  or,  so  far  as  the  un<lersigned  are  informed,  doubted. 
by  any  one  that  the  Senate  may  accei)t  and  ratify,  on  the  ])art  of  tlie 
United  States,  an}-  treaty  that  the  President  has  made  with  a  forei,i>;ii 
government,  that  he  sends  to  the  Senate  for  ct/Usideration,  and  may 
waive  any  informality  attending  its  negotiation. 

In  accepting  the  paper  sent  to  the  Senate  by  the  President  as  a 
treaty,  and  by  referring  the  same  to  its  committee,  the  Senate  have 
virtually  waived  any  informality,  if  there  is  any,  in  the  negotiation 
and  signing  of  the  instrunuMit,  and  th(>i  undersigned  coucpive  that  the 
whole  duty  of  the  committee  was  to  consider  and  n'port  ui)on  the 
merits  of  the  treaty.  .  , 

The  undersigiM'-d  will,  therefore,  present  their  views  upon  the  sub- 
stance of  the  treaty,  first,  and  will  then  state  the  reasons  tliat  force 
them  to  the  conclusion  that  there  can  be  no  just  ground  for  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  treaty,  growing  out  of  the  manner  of  its  m^gotiation. 

If  it  is  better  for  the  country  that  the  treaty  should  be  ratified,  tliej 
rejection  of  it  for  matters  that  are  merely  fornud  or  technical,  in  sol 
grave  an  emergency  as  is  now  presented  in  connection  with  this  old| 
and  hara*ising  (iontroversy,  would  be  a  serious  injury  to  the  country. 

The  undersigned  believe  that  it  is  better  for  our  country  that  tliej 
treaty  should  be  ratified,  and  they  are  equally  convinced  that  the  entirej 
class  of  our  people  who  are  actively  engaged  in  our  North  Atl;iiitic| 
lishing  industry  will  be  benefited  by  its  ratification. 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


41 


il 


The  first  article  of  tlie  treaty  of  1818  is  as  follows: 

Whereas  (IKforeticos  liavc  iiriseMi  respoctiiiji;  tli(^  liherty  claiiiHMl    liy  tlio   United 
States,  for  the  inliabitaiits  thereof,  to  take,  dry,  and  cure  tish  on  certain  coasts,  bays, 
harborM,  and  (jr'eeks  of  Hi.s  liritannic  Majesty'.s  dnniinions  in  America,  it  is  ay,rccd  be- 
tween the  hi;4h  coiitractin<j  parties  that  the  iidiabitants  ol'th(^  said  I'liited  States  shall 
liave  forever,  in  common  with  the  aubjocts  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  the  "libeity  to 
take  tish  of  every  kind  on  tliat  ])art  of  tlie  southern  coast  of  Newfoundland  which 
extends  from  Cape  Kay  to  the  Kamean  Islands,  on  the  western  and  mirthern  coast 
of  Newfonndland  ;   from  the  said  Cape  Ray  to  the  Qiiirpon    Islands,  on  the  shores 
of  the  Ma;j;dalen  Islands,  and  also  on  the  coasts,  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks,  fron> 
Mount  Joly,  on  the  sontlnn'n  coast  of  Labrador,  to  and   thronjih  tlie  Straits  of  Belle 
Lsle,  and  thencuMiorthwardiy,  indelinilel\-,  ahmjj;  the  coast,  without  pr«piilie<',  how - 
over,  to  any  of  the  exclasivo  rights  of  tJKi  Hudson   ISay  Company.      And  that    the 
American  tishoruitm  shall  also  have  liherty  Ibrever    to  <li'y  and  cure  iish  in  an,\'  of  the 
unsettled  bays,  harbors,  and  creelcs  of  lh<'  southern  part  of  the  coast,  of  Xew  found- 
laud  hereabove  described,  and  of  the  coast  of  Labrador;  but,  so  soon  as  the  same 
or  any  portion  thereof  shall  be  settled,  it  shall  not  be  lasvfnl  for  the  said  tishermen  to 
dry  or  cia'e  tish   at  such   i)ortiou  so  settled   without  previous    agreement  for  suck 
purpose   with  the-  inhabitants,  proprietors,  or   possessors  of  the  gronnd.     And   the 
United  States  liereby  renounce  forever   an\    liberty   heretofore  enjoyed  or   eiaimed 
by  the  inhabitants  thereof  to  take,  dry,  or  cure  hsh,  on  or  within  three  marine  miles 
of  any  of  the  coasts,  l)a,vs,  cretdvs,  or  haibi)rs  of  His  Britannic  Majesty's  domiirions 
ill  America   not   included  witiiin    the  abi)ve-mentione(l   limits:    Provided,   however, 
That  the  American   lisheriiien  shall   be  admitted   to  enter  such  bays  or  hailMUs   for 
the  purpose  of  shelter  and  of  repairing  damages  therein,  of  pnivdiasing  wood,  and 
of  obtaining  water,  and  for   no  other  pni'iiose  wliatever.     But  they  shall   be   under 
such  restrictions  as  may  lie  m-cessary  to  prevent  their  taking,  drying,  or  curing  Iish 
therein,  or  in  any  other  manner  whatever  abusing  the  privileges  hereby  reserved  to- 
them. 

Arti<;les  18  to  L^■),  hotli  inclusive,  of  the  treaty  of  1871,  (lovcrcd  the 
whole  subject  of  tlie  Jishiiij;-  ri.n'hts  and  liberties  between  tl.e  riiited 
States  aud  the  Uritish  Xorth  American  colonies,  "  in  (i<}<lition'"  to  those 
secured  by  the  treaty  of  1818.  ]So  other  aitiidcs  in  tlie  treaty  of  187L 
related  to  the  tisheries,  or  the  rijihts  of  lishernien.  \\li('n  tiie  United 
States  abrooated  these  articles,  that  coni])ietely  ended  the  inllnence  of 
tliat  treaty  over  our  tishiufi:  rijihts.  Article  1*1)  was  not  ternnnate<l,  but 
it  never  had  tiie  least  reference  to  the  fisheries  treaty  of  1818,  to  ciihirge 
its  scope,  chanj^'e  its  nicanin';',  or  in  any  way  to  affe(;t  any  ri^ht  to  which 
that  treaty  related.  Vet,  if -tliat  is  not  the  true  nieaniiif;'  of  tho  li'.Kh 
article  of  the  treaty  of  1871,  this  present  treaty  in  no  way  affects  that 
ai'ti(!le,  and  it  stands  for  id!  tlnit  it  was  ever  worth  in  favor  of  our  fish- 
eniien. 


m 


» 


42 


THE  fishi:ries  tkeaty. 


I. 

GENERAL  STATEMENT  OF  THE  SITUATION  WHICH  HAS  RESULTED  FROM 
THE  ''MISUNDERSTANDING"  AS  TO  THE  TRUE  MEANING  OF  TUK 
TRI:ATY  of  l!il8. 

J3iuiii<i'  ispventy  years  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
British  Xorth  Anieiican  provinces  in  the  noitlieast  have  been  i'lv- 
quently  eii<;aged  in  contention  and  dispnte,  in  controversy  and  con- 
flict, al>out  the  true  interpretation  of  the  fisheries  treaty  of  lbl8. 

The  most  fre(pient  and  serious  disagreements  have  arisen  under  tlio 
provisa  to  tlie  first  article,  which  is  as  follows: 

Provided,  hmvcvir,  That  tlio  Ani('ri(!aii  fislit'iinon  shall  ho  adinittcd  to  entor  .siitli 
bays  or  harhois  for  the  purpose  of  sht4tr;r  and  of  repairing  daiua<;es  tlierciii,  and  of 
purchasing  wood,  and  of  obtaining  water,  and  for  no  other  purpose  whatever,  lint 
they  shall  be  nnder  sncli  restrictions  as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent  their  takiiiir, 
drying,  or  curing  fish  therein,  or  iu  any  other  manner  whatever  abusing  the  privileges 
hereby  reserved  to  them. 

This  proviso,  aa  it  wns  proposed  by  our  negotiators,  contained  the 

words  "  and  bait "  after  the  word  "  water."    These  words  were  stricken 
out,  with  the  consent  of  our  Commissioners.    The  right  to  obtain  bait 

was  thus  finally  disposed  of  as  a  treaty  right. 

In  this  proviso  the  four  distinct  "privileges  hereby  reserved  to" 
Anierican  fishermen  are  stated  definitely,  while  "such  restrictions  us 
may  be  necessary  to  prevent"  them  iu  any  manner  from  "abusing  tbe 

privileges"  reserved  to  them  are  not  defined,  excei)t  in  the  most  general 
terms. 

American  fishermen  are  placed  " under  sudi  restrictions"  with  no 
guaranty  as  to  the  jurisdiction,  whether  provincial  or  imperial,  that 
shall  promulgate  and  enfoicr  them  ;  or  whether  they  shall  be  declared 
by  h^gislative  authority,  or  administered  by  executive  authority  or  by 
the  judiciary. 

It  was  coutemplated  in  this  treaty  that  further  defiaitious  on  these 
delicate  questions  should  be  settled,  either  by  the  future  agreement 
of  the  treaty  powers,  or  that  Great  Britain  should  choose  the  tribunals 
that  would  declare  and  enforce  these  "restrictions"  against  American 
fishermen,  subject  only  to  the  requirement  that  they  should  be  "  such 
restrictions  as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent  their  taking,  drying,  or 
curing  fish  therein,  or  in  any  other  manner  whatever  abusing  the  privi- 
leges hereby  reserved  to  them." 

That  controversies  would  arise  under  this  uncertain  definition  of  the 
power  to  prescribe  restrictions  to  our  fishermen  iu  the  eiyoymeutof 


positi 
ence  J 


i( 


[has  added 
Ifictilt. 


THE    FISHERIES   TREATY. 


43 


tUe  l>rivi- 

)a  of  tbe 
lyineut  of 


positive  treaty  rights  was  as  certain  in  1818  as  seventy  years'  ex[)t>ri- 
ence  has  proven  it  to  be,  in  an  nn fortunate  history. 

It  was  ])rol)al)ly  expected  in  1818  that  tlie  jiood  sense  of  the  p(H)i)le 
and  the  good  will  of  their  Governments  would  enable  them  to  arrange 
these  indefinite  "restrictions"  by  i)recedent  and  a(;quiescen«',e,  and  thus 
ii(loi)t  a  series  of  regulations,  the  justice  and  propriety  of  which  all 
would  admit.  But  such  hopes,  if  they  were  entertained,  have  been 
disappointed,  and  the  eajjer  rivalry  that  a  very  lucrative  employment 
lias  stinudated  has  involved  the  iteople  ami  their  (Tovernnu^nts  in  dan- 
(jerous  controversies  as  to  the  "restrictions"  that  were  left  without  ac- 
curate  definition  in  the  proviso  to  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  1818. 

Efforts  have  been  made,  that  were  for  a  time  successful,  to  compose 
these  and  other  troublesome  questions  growing  out  of  article  1  of  the 
treaty  of  1818,  by  new  treaty  arrangements  relating  to  the  lisheries  iu 
British  waters  on  the  novtheastern  coasts. 

In  the  treaty  of  1854  the  repose  of  these  questions  was  secured  for  a 
time  for  the  consideration  of  a  liberal  reciprocity  extending  to  a  variety 
of  snbjects.  Tiie  right  of  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
Kiver  was  included  in  that  reciprocal  agreement,  and  was  made  per- 
petual by  the  recii)rocity  treaty  ol'  1871. 

Iu  the  treaty  of  1871  we  again  |)ut  these  questions  to  rest  for  a  time 
by  the  promise  of  enough  money  to  equalize  the  i)ossible  a<lvantages  of 
the  Canadian  and  other  fisheries  over  those  on  our  coast  north  of  39^ 
north  latitude. 

Xeither  of  these  arrangements  proved  satisfactory  to  us  as  to  the  fish- 
eries, and  they  were  terminated  by  the  United  States. 

In  additiou  to  these  efibrts,  our  diplomatists  have  eniplo\ed  every 

« 

argument  that  seemed  possible,  through  many  years  of  laborious  cor- 
respondence and  conference,  to  find  a  gi'ound  of  mutual  understanding 
and  consent  as  to  the  true  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of  1818. 

Without  attempting  to  state  all  the  cases  of  warnings,  seizures,  fines, 

and  confiscations,  of  searches  anil  ca[)tures  and  other  rigorous  appli- 

[cations  of  "restrictions"  that  have  been  visited  upon  our  fishernuMi, 

I  it  is  paiufully  true  that  they  have  been  very  uumerous,  fre<iuently  verj' 

aggravated,  and  have  caused  our  fishermen  great  exi)ense  and  serious 

[losses. 

Every  fishing  season,  when  the  reciprocity  treaties  were  not  in  force, 
[lias  added  to  these  complications  and  rendered  their  solution  more  dif- 
Ificult. 


m 


f*"*" 


44 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


That  very  little  progress  bus  beeu  made  in  reacliiny'  a  coiiiinon  basis 
of  agreement  iu  the  solution  of  those  contentions  and  conflicting  con. 
structions  of  the  i)roviso  in  article  1  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  or  in  re- 
spect of  the  headland  tlieory  (which  is  based,  as  we  uncbn'stand,  upon 
the  language  of  tliat  proviso  and  tlie  pr«'ce<liiig  ))arts  of  that  scc^tion. 
and  not  upon  the  princii)les  of  international  law),  is  apparent  from  the 
citations  of  cases  that  have  arisen  since  1S18,  [)resently  to  be  nuule. 

Instead  of  a  nearer  approacli  to  such  an  understanding  as  to  a  triic 
and  mutually  acceptable  construction  of  the  lirst  article  of  the  treaty.  ;i 
vidvx  "'\ergeiice  of  opinion  and  a  more  determined  contention  ha\f 
characterized  the  dii)lomacy  of  bf)th  the  treaty  powers. 

We  seein  now  to  have  reached  a  point  where  we  nuist  seek  to  all;t\ 
the  growing  bitterness  of  these  ditferences  by  a  friendly,  sincere,  and 
mutn.'^llv  .L-ripectful  consideration  of  the  poisitious  assumed  by  each  Gov- 
ernnieui  ru  .'ise  xa  must  enforce  our  views  by  vigorous  measures  ol 
retaliat'>n. 

It  se'^ms  to  ha  e  ''<^oome  necessary  to  make  such  moditieations  of  tiiai 
treat.y  at<  ar-  '.n^j.  i  '  -i  by  our  changed  comnu^rcial  relations  since  ISls, 
and  also  by  our  mi  tin  s  ,;"  fi  filing  with  purse  seines  and  of  preserving 
fish  in  ice  and  snow,  which  have  grown  ui>  into  almost  entirely  new 
systems,  jvith  new  attending  wants,  iu  the  past  thirty  years. 

The  gradual  abridgment  of  our  right  to  land  and  cure  lish  on  tlie 
shores  of  the  British  possessions,  as  the  country  along  the  shores  should 
become  i)opulated,  was  provided  for  in  the  treaties  of  1783, 1818,  1851. 
and  1871.  This  feature  in  a  treaty  is  thought  to  be  entirely  novel.  It 
relates  to  a  future  expected  change  in  the  condition  of  the  then  miiii- 
babited  coasts  of  British  America.  It  certainly  suggests  in  a  forcible 
way  that  it  was  contemi)lated  that  future  mod.tieatious  of  the  treaties 
would  be  necessary  to  meet  these  changed  conditions  when  they  should 
occur. 

The  progress  of  civilization  on  the  Xortli  American  continent,  with 
the  necessary  increase  of  commerce  and  of  improvement  in  every  in- 
dustry, has  wrought  changes  m  the  condition  of  the  people  which  have 
demanded,  from  time  to  time,  changes  in  the  treaty  relations  of  the  m 
joining  countries  that  were  indispensable. 

The  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi  and  St.  Lawrence  Rivers,  iisj 
now  agreed  upon,  is  a  most  forcible  illustration  of  this  necessity  for  an 
international  policy,  modified  by  interinitional  agreement,  that  will  piO' 
vide  for  the  mutual  wants  ami  advantage  of  these  adjoining  countii'sj 
as  the  occasion  demands. 


An 

aients 
try,  w 
creates 
tJjat  is 
Mr.  J 
ornmen 
ISIS,  ai 
wlonial 
sti'ict  aij 
liccause 
of  vast  ] 
iiiand  foi 
cial  and 
Such  c( 
■iinicient 
and  resell 
tions,  rati 
fowai'd«  e 
To  sJiow 
prosejit  tl 
t'onllicting 
1318.     Iti, 
occuried, 
oils  di/l'ere 
featy,  attt 
lowed  by  d 
'  est  conseqi 
Ju  all  tin 
I  lliafc  of  Th 
l^^i'i,  has  a^ 
( "iKler  the 
I^)aratioi 


'•  Jinie  y(i,  1) 

IS22. 
'-'•  in  1823,  Ch 
■^"'y  18, 18; 
Y'  J'lJy  18,  18-1 
October?,  if 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


45 


isis 
ion- 
ic- 
ipoii 
:iou, 
I  tlie 
Ic. 

\ty.  i» 

I  allay 
UGov- 

lUVS  ot 
of  tllilt 

serving 
ely  Ht'w 

on  tlie 

sluuilA 
|18,  IS.")!. 
iVtM.    ll 
1(M\  miiii- 

iV)i't'il)U' 
[>  ireatu'^ 

\  shoultl 

Lat,  with 
jevt'vy  ill- 
inch  liiW' 
)f  tUc  iiil- 

[livers,  as  I 
lity  I'oi'^ui 
It  will  iivo- 
countii's 


An  inflexiblo  adlieieiico  to  the  literal  construction  of  ancient  agree- 
ments that  have  become  too  narrow  for  the  convenience  of  either  conn- 
try,  whethei  it  results  from  national  Jealousy  or  commercial  rivalry, 
creates  an  incubus  upon  tlu^  progress  of  the  communities  concerned 
that  is  derogatory  to  those  wlio  refuse  to  yield  rheir  prejudices. 

Mr.  Bayard,  in  presenting  to  the  consideration  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment the  reasons  for  a  more  liberal  interpretation  of  the  treaty'  of 
1818,  and  for  an  enlargement  of  the  privileges  of  our  tisherinen  in  the 
colonial  ports,  strongly  urged  the  necessity  for  this  relaxation  of  the 
strict  and  literal  construction  idiiced  by  that  Government  on  that  treaty, 
because  of  the  growth  t)f  the  commerce  of  both  countries,  the  building 
of  vast  lines  of  railways,  the  increase  of  population,  the  enlarged  de- 
mimd  for  the  prodiuits  of  the  fisheries,  and  the  more  intimate  (;omnier- 
oial  and  so(!ial  relations  of  the  i)eople. 

Such  considerations  demand  careful  attention,  and  are.  of  themselves, 
siinicient  reasons  to  induce  both  Governn)ents  to  lay  aside  i)rejudices 
iiiul  resentments,  and  to  induce  their  i)eople  to  cultivate  friendly  rela- 
tions, rather  than  to  ymt  tlielr  welfare  at  hazard  by  fostering  ill-will 
to\var<ls  each  other,  resulting'  in  continual  strile. 

To  show  tiie  very  serious  results  of  a  different  policy,  the  undersigned 
present  the  following  statement  of  cases  that  have  arisen  out  of  the 
conllicting  views  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of 
1818.  It  is  probably  far  short  of  the  full  list  of  cases  that  have  actually 
occurred,  but  it  is  large  enough  to  disclose  the  fact  that  wide  and  seri- 
ous differences  have  existed  since  1819  in  the  iuterpretation  of  that 
treaty,  attended  with  complaints  and  remonstrances  and  protests,  fol- 
lowed by  diplomatic  correspondence,  and  at  times  threatening  the  grav- 
est consequences  to  the  peace  of  the  two  countries. 

In  all  the  long  list  of  cases  that  are  here  referred,  to  only  in  one  case, 
ibat  of  The  Washington,  seized  for  fishing  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy  in 
1843,  has  any  reparation  been  made  for  any  wrong  done  our  fishermen 
uuder  the  treaty  of  1818. 

Reparation  was  not,  indeed,  demanded  in  any  such  case  until  1S8G. 

JJst  of  cases  nhovc  rrf erred  to. 
1.  June '^(j,  1822,  JJOrieiit  seized,  takou  to  St.  John,  ami  cou(U"iiiiaMl  St'iHoniber  14, 

Ill  1823,  Charles  of  York,  Maine,  seized  by  the  Argna  aud  taken  into  port  for  trial. 
|3,  July  18, 1824,  GaUioii  seized,  takeu  to  St.  John,  and  condemned  August  16,  1824. 
[4.  July  18,  1824,  William  seized,  taken  to  St.  John,  and  condemned  August  16,  1824. 
jo.  October?,  1824,  Escape  seized,  taken  to  St.  John,  and  condemned  November  18, 1824, 


li 


r    ' 


4\ 


'■iM'i    \: 


46 


THE    FISHEKIKS    TREATY. 


fi.  Octolior?,  IS21,  Ji'orer  sci/.tMl,  tiikiMi  to  Si.. John,  and  coiuleiuiiDil  Xovcmlicr  H,  Ircjj. 

7.  OotoljcrT,  18'2I,  iS't'rt  /'Voiar  suizfil,  tiiki'ii  ti)  8t.  John,  and  con.leinued  Noveinlxr 

18,  l^-2A. 

8.  Juno  I,  Iti'.iS,  Hero  seizod,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  January  5J8,  l^.i^. 

i).  Nov«nil)or  1,  IdlW,  Combene  si.'iztjd,  takm  to  Halifax,  and  condonincd  .Janu;ii'y  'J*. 

10.  May  — ,  IHIi'.t,  Jura  wd/cd,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condenmed  Ani^nst  '>,  l>^.',\). 

11.  June  4,  18:V.),  SliclUuid  sei/.ed,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  eondonined  Jnly  8,  l'^X!>. 

12.  May  20,  18:il.',  Inikptmknw  «fl/,i;d,  taken    to  Halifax,  and  condemned  Au;;ii.st  .'), 

I8;w. 

13.  May  25,  1839,  MaijuoUa  wizeil,  taken  to  Halifax,  .and  condemned  Au<;nst .'»,  183ii. 

14.  May — ,  lH:5i),  Ilarl  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  Anji;nst  .">,  18:i',», 
I.').  June — ,  lHr?'J,  BatiUe  tit'.\y,i'A\,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  Jnly  8,  18:')',). 

10.  Juno  14,  1839,  Ilyder  Alhi  seized,  taken  lo  Halifax,  and  condemned  Jnly  8,  1*59. 

17.  June  14,  1839,  A7i>«  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  Jnly  8,  1839. 

18.  June  — ,  1839,  May  Flower  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  restored  to  its  owners. 

19.  June  2,  1840,  I'aphieaa  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  Jnly  10,  1840. 

20.  Juno  2,  1840,  Mary  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  July  10,  1840, 

21.  September  11,  1810,  J/;(ii<  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  December  rf, 

1840. 

22.  September  18,  1840,  Dirertor  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  December 

8,  1840. 

23.  October  1,  1840,  Ocean  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  December  8, 1840. 

24.  May  6,  1841,  Pionvtr  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  August  18,  1841. 

25.  May  20,  1841,  Two  Friendx  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  restored. 

20.  September  20,  1841,  Mara  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  November ',', 
1841. 

27.  September  20,  1841,  Egret  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  November  ,', 

1841. 

28.  October  1:5,  1841,  ll'urrhr  s(.-ized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  Novciuber  ',i, 

1841. 

29.  October  V.\.  1841,  //o/^e  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  restored. 

30.  October  13,  1841,  Mtu/  Flower  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  December 

7,  1841. 

31.  May  7,  184:5,  Washington  .seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  August  1, 1843. 

32.  In  1844,  Argus  seized  by  the  S>ilpli,  otf  the  coast  of  Cape  Breton,  when  "fifteen 

miles  from  any  land,"     "This  was  the  second  seizure  under  the  ue\V  construc- 
tion of  the  treaty  of  1816," 

33.  In  1845,  "an  American  fisherman     »     *     *     was  seized  in  the  Bay  of  Fumly,  at| 

anchor  inside  the  light-honse  at  the  entrance  of  Digby  Gut," 

34.  In  1840,  "the  seizure  and  total  loss  of  several  American  vessels,"  not  named,  isj 

noted  in  S,  Doc.  22,  2d  sess,,  ;{2d  Congress. 

35.  May  10,  1848,  Hyadea  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condenmed  September  5, 184^  | 

36.  May  11,  1849,  Leonidas  seized,  taken  to  Halifax,  and  condemned  June  29,  1849. 

37.  September  14,  1850,  Hari)  seized,  taken  to  Halifiix,  and  condemned  January  3?, j 

1851. 


THE    FISHERIES    TRERTY. 


47 


■iiiU.'i' 

r.VJ. 
iry  -i^, 

lit. 

;W. 
c.v.). 

;«». 

I,  1810. 
!40. 
eember  v^, 

December 

ber  8, 1840. 
18,  1841. 

OVfUlbfV  ■■.', 

ovoinber  ;', 
Dvi' labor  ',l, 

Id  Di>cei"'"^'' 

Lust  l.lStt. 

lu'u  "t\ftee!i| 

[\\-  construe- 

Lf  Fmidy,  at 

lot  named,  is  I 

Iniber  &,  1^4^ 
29,  1849. 
January  2?, 


38.  October  "iO,  1H.")1,  Ti7*er  nei/.i'il,  but  thcro  is  no  inlormntion  iih  to  tlic  disposition 
made  of  it. 

;?'.).  .Jiiiitr  1(5,  18.')2,  C(»n// ,s(flzc(l,  takcu  to  St.  .loiiii,  and  cdiidi'iiiiicd  .Inly  '28,  iH'i'i. 

411  .July  20.  IHiVi,  ('»/(>«  .sci/.^d.  taken  to  Cliariottotowii,  ;nid  conilcinncd  Sciitciiiber 
'^4,  lr-:V>. 

41.  An^jjiist  f),  l>^r)'2,  Floriila  ,sei/.(>d,  taken  to  L'h.irlnttetown,  and  (•nn(b'Min"d  S'-ptein- 
ber  7.  18.VJ. 

4"2.  September  11,  lr>'rl,  CaroHiu:  Knhjlit  .seizcid,  taken  to  (Miarlottetown,  and  con- 
demned. 

4!!.  In  18r)2,  Golden  //»/e  detained  and  taken  to  (Uiarlottetown.  .ind  liberated  on  tho 
owner  ackno\vledgin<j  violation  of  tlie  treaty  ami  that  the  liberation  was  an 
act  of  elomeney. 

44.  November  l(i,  1H()S>,  Vice-Adiniral  Wellesley  reported  that  dnrinir  the  |>aHt  season 
IG'i  vessels  had  been  boarded  by  the  British  ('rnisers,  of  \vhi(!li  llU  within  tho 
tliree-Tuile  limit  had  been  warned  oncuj,  and  19  had  been  warned  twice. 

Ill  1870  the  tbllowiiijf  elevon  (U)  vessels  were  seized  and  taken  into 
tlie  i>rovincial  ports,  .souie  of  which  were  condemned,  wliile  others,  ])er- 
luips,  were  liberated:  June  27,  Wampatack  (condemned);  .June  30, 
./.  H.  Nickerson  (talvcii  to  Halifax) ;  August  27,  Lizzie  A.  Tarr  (con- 
demned) ;  September  30,  A.  H.  W'onson  (taken  to  Halifax) ;  October  15, 
A.  J.  FranM'm  {t'Ak^w  to  Halifax);  November  8,  iiowj? ;  November  25, 
White  Fawn  (taken  to  St.  John);  and  8.  G.  MarHhall.  Albert,  and  Clara 
F.  Friend. 

lu  January,  1878,  the  Fred.  P.  Frye,  Mary  M.,  Lizzie  and  Namari^ 
Edward  E.  Webster,  William  E.  McDonald,  Crest  of  the  Wave,  F.  A. 
Smith,  Hereward,  Moses  Adams,  Charles  E.  Warren.  Moro  Castle,  Wild- 
fire. Maud  and  Fjjfie,  Isaac  Rich,  Bunker  Hill,  Bonanza,  Moses  Knowlton, 
H,  M.  Rogers,  John  W.  Bray,  Maud  B.  Wefherell,  Neui  Enf/land,  and 
Ontario  were  driven  from  Long  Harbor  in  Fortune  Ba^^  by  the  violence 
of  a  mob,  which  destroyed  some  of  their  seines,  and  did  not  again  that 
season  return  to  their  fishing-grounds.  Twenty-two  vessels  were  in- 
cliuled  in  this  list,  the  interference  with  which  was  made  the  occasion 
of  a  separate  and  important  correspondence,  conducted,  on  our  side, 
chiefly  by  Mr.  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State. 

The  following  lists  are  taken  from  the  subjoined  correspondence  of 
Secretary  Bayard  and  Professor  Baird  with  Mr.  Edmunds,  chairman  of 
I  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  : 

Revised  Hat  of  vesBcIa  involved  in  the  controversy  with  the  Canadian  authorities. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  26,  1887. 
Sir  ;  Responding  to  your  reqnest,  dated  the  17th  and  received  at  this  Department 
Ion  the  18th  instant,  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  for  a  revision 


*':.i 


i'   *   I; 
'■   Ml 


m 


ill 


48 


THE    FISHKRIES    TREATY. 


of  tho  list,  liorotofore  fiiruislioil  by  ilii.s  l)i!|)iirtiiu'iit  to  tbo  coimiiittiu!,  of  nil  Ameri- 
can vnssols  seized,  wfiniod,  tiiiod,  or  dotuiiiod  by  tiio  Caiiiidlan  aiitboiitios  during  ijm 
year  IHrtCJ,  I  now  incloso  tbo  sanio. 

Every  snt-h  instanco  is  tboreiu  cbronolt)j;i»-'ally  onnnieratod,  with  a  stateintMitof  the 
genoral  facts  att»Midinit. 

Vory  respoctfiilly,  yours, 

T.  F.  IUyaui.. 
Hon.  Gkougk  F.  Edmunds, 

United  Slates  Senate. 


List  of  Jmericnn  veai^eh  seized,  detained,  or  teamed  off/rom  Canadian  ports  diirin;/  thr  la^t 

year, 

1.  Sarah  li.  J'ntuam.  Beverly,  Mnss.;  Cbarles  Randolph,  master.    Driven  from  Iiailioi 

of  Pulinico  ill  storm  Maroli  'Z'2,  1H'^(5. 

2.  Joseph  Slor//.   (Jlouccslcr,   Mass.    Detained  hy  cnstoiiis  ofliciu's  at   Baddeck,  N,  S. 

in  April,  18H(),  for  alleged  violation  of  the  customs  laws.     Released  after  tweiity- 
fonr  hours'  detention. 

3.  Seth  Stockhridgc.  Gloucester,  Mass.;  Antoiie  Olson,  master.  Warned  oil'  from  fjt. 

Andrews,  N.  B.,  about  April  30,  1886. 

4.  Annie  Af.  Jordan.  Gloucester,  Mass.;  Alexander  Haiue,  master.     Warned  otV  at  St. 

Andrews,  N.  B.,  about  May  4,  188G. 

5.  David  J.  Adams.  Gloucester,  Ma.ss. ;  Alden  Kinney,  master.    Seized  at  Di»by,  Nuva 

Scotia,  May  7,  188G,  for  alleged  violation  of  treaty  of  1818,  act  of  59,  George  III, 
and  act  of  1883.  Two  suits  brought  in  vice-admiraltj'  court  at  Halifax  for  iieii- 
alties.  Protest  tiled  May  1*2.  Suits  ponding  still,  and  vessel  uot  yet  releasoil 
apparently. 
G.  Snsie  Cooper.  (Hooper?)  Gloucester?,  Mass.  Boarded  and  searched,  and  crew 
rudely  treated,  by  Canadian  officials  in  Caiiso  Bay,  Nova  Scotia,  May,  IHrii;. 

7.  Ella  M.  Doufihty.  Portland,  Me. ;  Warren  A.  Doughty,  master.    Seizedat  St.  Ann's, 

Cape  Breton,  May  17,  1886,  for  alleged  violation  of  the  customs  laws.  Suit  was 
instituted  in  vice-admiralty  court  at  Halifax,  Nova  Scotia,  but  was  subse- 
qu(!!itly  abandoned,  and  vessel  was  released  June  21),  188G. 

8.  Jennie  and  Jniia.  Eastport,  Mo. :  W.  H.  Travis,  nuister.    Warned  off  at  Digby,  Nova 

Scotia,  by  customs  officers.  May  IS,  188G. 

9.  Lucy  Ann.  Gloucester,  Mass.  ;  Joseph  H.  Smith,  master.     Warned  off  at  Yar- 

mouth, Nova  Scotia,  May  29,  1886. 
10.  Matthew  Keany.  Gloucester,  Mass.    Detained  at  Souris,  Prince  Edward  Islam!, 

one  daj'  for  alleged  violation  of  customs  laws,  about  May  31,  1886. 
31.  James  A.  Garfield.   Gloucester,    Mass.     Tbreate.ied,    about  June  1,    1880,  wit 

seizure  for  having  purchased  bait  in  a  Canadian  harbor. 

12.  Martha  IF.  Bradly.  Gloucester,  Mass.;  J.  F.   Ventier,   master.     Warned  off  at  | 

Canso,  Nova  Scotia,  between  Juno  1  and  8,  1886. 

13.  Eliza  Boynton.  Gloucester,   Mass.;   George  E.  Martin,   master.      Warned  offiitj 

Canso,  Nova  Scotia,  between  June  1  and  9,  1880.  Then  afterwards  detainedj 
in  manner  not  reported,  and  released  October  25,  1886. 


l>ebiac 

-('.  Shilofi.  Gi 

Scotia, 

-'•  Julia  Elle, 

Angiiat 

''-•  Ereddie  II . 

^'ov.i  St 

*•  Ifowurd  Ji 

August 

oil  depo,- 

a  m. 


THK    FISHEIIIKS    THKATY, 


41) 


u. 

1.'). 
n;. 

17. 


Id. 


•iO. 


21. 


-a. 


u. 


•1-) 


MdHrnt.  rtl()uc<>.stt»r,  MiiSM. ;  Aloxiimlor  McHnchcni,  iimstor.  Warned  dlV  .it  Port 
Anihi-rst,  Miij-tljilni  IsI.iihIh,  June  10,  IH-d. 

Tltoiiinn  /•'.  IUti;uid.  (iloiici'stcr,  Miiss. ;  Jiiiiu^.s  McDonald,  nia.ilir.  Warned  oil' at 
lloniic  Hay,  N'cwI'oundlaiid,  Jmm  \'i,  l^Hii. 

.hiiinH  a.  ('lu'iij.  I'lirtland,  Mi'.;  Wi-liln'i',  master.  Ci'«\v  rofiisod  privilo^jt)  ot'laiid- 
inj;  for  iicdi'ssiiricH  .it  Brooklyn,  Xova  S(!otia,  Jiiue  1.')  or  l(i,  IH-'O. 

C\t>i  I'lthit.  Portland,  Me.  ;  Koi'uc,  in.istfr.  Detaiiii'd  at  Slitdburno,  Nova  Scotiii, 
.Fnly  -i,  If^Hi),  for  all('<r('d  violation  of  cnstnnis  laws.  Penalty  of  S|()()  de- 
in.'iiided.  Money  tle)iosite(l,  nnder  protest,  .Inly  1-',  and  in  addition  $P.i()  costs 
deposited  .Inly  11.  Fini)  and  costs  refnmlod  Jnlyil,  and  vessel  released  Anyjnst 
5i().  Harbor  duos  exacited  Ani-nst  "Jti,  ?iot  withstanding^  vessid  had  \nwn  rcdnsed 
all  the  ]invile;;es  of  entry. 

C.  /'.  Iliirnni/loii.  Pol  tland.  Me. ;  Ficliiek,  master.  Di^tained  iit  Slitdbnrne,  Xova 
Scotia,  .Inly  :!,  lf«8(),  for  alleged  violaticni  ofenstoms  laws;  lined  §4l)0  .July,"); 
line  dei)(>.sited.  under  protest,  .July  I'J;  §l'.iO  costs  dejiosited  .July  14;  refunded 
July  21,  and  vessel  released. 

IfeirivariL  Gloucpsti'r,  Mass.;  McDoiuild.  master.  Detained  two  days  at  Canso, 
Nova  Scotia,  about  .July  :!,  l-^St!,  tor  sliippinj;  seamen  contrary  to  jiort  laws. 

(I.  Jr.  CiiHlihifi.  Portland,  Me.;  .lewctt,  master.  Detained  .July  (i)y  another  re- 
port. .June)  :'.,  1>."^(!,  at  Shelliurne,  Nova  Scotia,  for  altencMl  violation  of  tlio  cusi- 
tomslaws;  lined  $400;  money  dei>osited  witli  collector  at  Halifax  altout  .July 
12  or  14,  an<l  Jjil'^O  for  costs  deposited  14lh;  costs  refunded  .July  21,  and  vessel 
released.  ' 

GoUlvii  Ilhtd.  Gloucester,  Mass. ;  Rul)en  Cameron,  master.  Warned  oil"  at  Bay  of 
Chalenrs,  Nova  Scotia,  on  or  about  .July  2.1,  18-*t). 

Xoveltji.  Portland,  Mo.  ;  H.  A.Joyce,  nuister.  Warned  oil' at  Pictou,  Nova  Scotia, 
.June  y.*,  l."^H(i,  where  vessel  liatl  entered  for  coal  and  water;  also  refuseil  en- 
trance at  Amherst,  Nova  Scotia,  .July  2A. 

X.  J.  Miller,  Booth   May,  Me. ;    DicUson,  master.     Detaiueil  at  Hopewell  Capo, 

New  Brunswick,  for  allej^ed  violation  of  customs  laws,  on  July  24,  I88G.     Fined 
$400. 

Raitlev.  Gloucester,  Mass. ;  A.  F.  Cunnin.i;ham,  n. aster.  Warned  olT  at  Canso, 
Nova  Scotia,  June,  1(^80.  Detained  in  p(»rt  of  Shelburne,  Nova  Scotia,  where 
vessel  entered  seeking  shelter  Auj^ust  :i,  188().  Kept  under  j;uard  all  ni<>ht  ami 
released  on  the  4tli. 

('urolhie  I'oiKjhl.  Booth  Bay,  Mo,;  Charles  S.  Reed,  master.  Warned  otF  at  Pas- 
l)ebiac.  New  Brunswick,  and  refused  water,  Auj^ust  4,  l.-^HO. 

Sliiloh.  Gloucester,  Mass. ;  Charles  Nevit,  nuister.  Boarded  at  Liverpool,  Nova 
Scotia,  August  l),  and  subjected  to  rude  surveillance. 

JiiUa  Ellen.  liooth  Bay,  Me. ;  Burnes,  master.  Boarded  at  Liverpool,  Nova  Scotia, 
Augtiat  S),  188(i,  and  subjected  to  rude  surveillance. 

Freddie  11'.  Allton.  Provincetown,  Mass. ;  AUton,  master.  Boarded  at  Liverpool, 
Nova  Scotia,  August  S),  18811,  and  subjected  to  rude  surveillance. 

Howard  Holbrook.    Gloucester,  Mass.      Detained  at  Hawkesburg,  Capo  Breton, 
August  17,  1880,  for  alleged  violation  of  the  customs  laws.     Released  Augu.st  20 
on  deposit  of  $400.     Question  of  remission  of  flue  .still  pending. 
S.  m<.  109 4 


'4 


\i       M 


'  Sf 


i'ii  i;  il< 


no  - 


THE    FISlIKlilKS    TUKATV. 


:{u, 


31 


av. 


an, 

34. 

3r,. 

31). 


37. 

38. 
33. 


40. 

41. 
42. 
43. 
44. 


A.  I{.  Critlniihu,  (JloncfMtpr,  Miihn.  ;  Main,  iiiiiHttT.  DctuiiH'd  af  Hiivvkt-jHlmrv 
Ncivii  Si'otia,  August  "i?,  lH,-<(),  for  «llc;r(tl  violntioii  ofciiNloiim  lawH.  I'dur  lum. 
(Ir«'(l  (lollaiM  jKiiialty  depo  ited  AiiKust  'If*  witliout  pmttjHf,  aiul  vphkcI  rclfiiMil, 
'I'liri'i-  lunnli'cil  and  scvt'iity-liv*'  dolluTM  rrmittcd,  and  ii  mutiiiial  line  nf's'.':,  j,„. 

jinMt'd. 

Mollir  .idiiDiH,  frlouccsttT,  MuHf*. ;  Soloiniiii  .lacidi.s,  iiiaMltT.  Wariifd  otV  im,, 
Mtoiiii  (roiii  Straits  ol'C.'aiiso,  Nova  Scotia,  Aiijfiisl  31,  IHHd. 

HiijhlutHl  l.iijhl.  Wciillft't,  .MasH. ;  .).  II.  Kydcr,  iiiastei'.  St'izi'd  o|J'  KasI  I'liini, 
I'rincc  Kdwai'd  Island,  S(4|>ttMiil)t>r  1, 188(S,  wliilo  HhIuiik  witiiin  proliibiti'd  llm.. 
Suit  lor  f'oi  Icitin*)  ln-jriiii  in  vl(;«)-adiniralty  imiit  at  Chailotlutowri.  lit'ariuir 
net  lor  Sciitfinbor  20,  Imt  po.stponrd   to  Scptcinlu'r  30.     MaMt«*r  'tii'd  ii,,, 

tdiaif',0  and  coiilVuscd  jinl^inciit.     Vfswtd  condi-nnii'd  and  sold  .iiiImt  II. 

PnrclniHed  Ity  Canadian  (Jovcinnu'nt. 

I'cail  jV</»o»/,  riovincttown,  ManH. ;  Ki'inji,  inaHtcr.  Ketaincd  at  Aridial,  (niic 
Hicti'N,  Scpti'mluT  8,  IrtHd,  for  alicj;i'd  violation  of  cnstotns  la\v«.  UflcaMd 
Si'iitt  iiiImi'  !•,  on  dtponit  of  iji'iOO.     D«po8it  refunded  October  20,  IHWi. 

/'ioiictr,  (iloiiccster,  Mans.;  F.  F.  Cruelied,  niasti-r.  Warnt'd  otf  ut  Canso,  Xovn 
Scotia,  S."pt<MnlM^r '.>,  \m>. 

Krcntl  .S7<.r/,  (JliMKcster,  .MasH. ;  ('liarl<'«H.  ForbeH,  niaHtcr.  Detained  at  Slid- 
bnriii^,  Nova  Scotia,  September  10,  IHHC),  for  alleytMl  viobition  of  ciiBtoinn  laws. 
Released  by  order  from  Ottawa,  September  11,  1881). 

Moro  CaHtle,  Gloneestir,  Mass.  ;  Edwin  M.  Joyce,  nuister.  Petained  at  Hawks. 
bury,  Nova  Scotia,  September  11,  18H(i,  on  clinrgo  of  liaving  sniuj^ifled  j^ooils 
into  Chester,  Nova  Scotia,  in  1HH4,  and  also  of  violatinfj;  cnston  'aws.  A  dc- 
jKisit  of  Sl.CiOO  demanded.     Vessel  discharged  November  'iO,  1  -i  jtayMicut, 

by  agreement,  of  ?i!l,0(.'0  to  Canadian  Government. 

li'iUiam  /).  Daislei/,  Gloneester,  Mass. ;  J.  E.  Gornnin,  master.  P'>*!iiued  at  Souiis, 
Prince  Edward  Island,  October  4,  I88li,  for  alleged  violation  of  customs  law, 
Fined  !?4oO,  iind  ndeased  on  payment;  $'M^i  of  the  fine  remittrd. 

Laura  Sniiuuird,  (Gloucester,  Mass.;  Medeo  Rose,  master.  Refused  privilege  of 
lauding  to  buy  provisions  at  Sludbnrno,  Nova  Scotia,,  0(!tob(>r  .'),  18HI). 

Marion  (irimes,  Gloucester,  Mass.  Detained  at  Shelbnrne,  Nova  Scotia,  October 
'.>.  for  violation  of  port  laws  in  failing  to  report  at  custom-house  on  eutciiiif;, 
Fiiu'd  .'rilOO.  Moi\ey  paid  under  ])rotest  and  vessel  reh.'ased.  Fine  reunited 
December  4,  1?^H(5. 

Ji'iiiiie  Seareriis,  Ghmcesicr,  Mass.;  .Joseph  Tupper,  nuister.     Refused  privilege  of 

landing,  and  vessel  placed  under  guard  at  Liverpool,  Nova  Scoti.n,  Ocfolicr'Jii, 

Ir^-^G. 
FhjiiKj  Scud,  Ghmcester,  Mass.     Detained  for  alleged  violation  of  customs  Jawsiu 

Halifax,  November  1,  or  about  that  time.     Rclt'ased  NovtMuber  !(!,  HHO. 
Sarah  II.  I'rior,  IJoston,  Mass.     Refu,sed  the  restoration  of  a  lost  seinti,  wliicli  was 

found  by  a  Canadian  schooner,  December  lr8(i. 
Zio(/7  (name  uukuowu).  Stephen  R.  Balcom,  master,  Eastport,  Me.  Warned  off atj 

St.  Audrews,  New  Brunswick,  July  1>,  1880,  with  others. 
Two  small  boata  (unnamed);  Charles  Smith,  Pembroke,  Me.,  master.    Seized  atj 

East  Quaddy,  New  IJniuswlck,  September  1,  lH8t),  for  alleged  violation  of  ciis-j 

toms  laws. 


I'.UfUt, 


\WiH'  of 
OctdWv 
Vfunlt»'<l 


THK    KISIIKRIKS    TKKATY. 


51 


4"i.  />*'»»W  (fortMKii  Itnilt).  (JlonccHtor,  MiiHM,     Sni/od,  wariicl   ull,  ur   iiinicstcil  «>fhir- 

wisr  at  Hoiiir  tiiiio  prior  t<»  St-ptfinlMT  (i,  H'<(i. 
K!.   Alihii/  .1.  SiiDir.   Iiijiii'v  to  tliis  vcmmcI  lias  not  Ikm-ii  rt'itoilcd  to  ilm  1)i-|ini'tiiii>iit  of 

Slato. 
17.  /'.'//.••((  .1.  lliDiiiitK,   Injury  to  this  vcf^sfl  has  not  lii'iii  rt'portcd   to  tlio  Dt  pai  tint-nt 

of  State. 
I-^.   il'itlc-Attiikr,  KaKtjMirt,  Mc  ;    William     Foley,  nni-4er.     I'incd  at    I/Ktanjj,  Now 

Mrnnswic'k,  If/.')  for  tiiUinjj  iiway  llsli  without  <;<'ftinK  ii   clearanc"  :  atjaio  No. 

venilier  \'.\,  ls8(),  at  St.  (Jeor^fe,  N(uv  UrnnHwiek,  lined  S'viO  lor  Mimilar  olVense. 

Ill  lioth  rases  h(!  was  proeei'dinj^  to  obtain  cleariineeM, 

r.  S.  (.'oMMissiox  OK  Fish  and  FisiiKinK,K, 

U'iinhiiiiiton,  I).  C,  Ffhniari/  .'>,  1HH7. 
Siu:  I  forward  lierewitli,  lor  your  inforniation,  a  eopy  of  a  coininiinieation  from 
Mr.  K.  Edward  Far!!,  in  fiiarH;e  of  th«  Division  of  FiHlieries  of  tliis  ('onimission,  ac- 
('iini))anied  liy  a  iiatof  N<!\v  Fnjjiaiul  lishiiij;  vessels  wliieh  have  Ikmmi  ineonvenicncod 
ii:  their  lishing  operations  l»y  tlie  (!aii;ulian  authoritieH  diiriiiu;  the  past  snason  ;  those 
iH'iii.n  in  addition  to  the  vessels  nientiouod  in  the  revised  list  of  vessels  involved  in 
iLc  controversy  witli  the  Canadian  autlioritios.  furnished  toyonrconiniitt(>eon.Iannary 
'^!i  by  tlio  Seeretnry  of  Statt^ 

Tlie,  paiiers  containinjj  the  Htatenionts  wore  received  from  the  own(>r,s,  masters,  or 
iij,'rnta  of  the  vessels  coucerned,  and,  though  not  iceonipaiiieil  hy  alHdavits,  are  lie- 
lifved  to  lie  corrtict. 

V(.'ry  respectfully,  yours, 

Si'i;nci.ii  F.  Haiud, 

Ca.il  missioner, 
lion.  Gkokgk  F.  Fo.MiiNDS, 

('haintiaii  Commiltev  on  Furvii/n  lielutioiis,  Untied  Slattn  Stiiate. 


IS  hnvsiU 

I'lu'il  oil  at  I 

Sei/.wl  atj 
Ion  of  tiisH 


U.  8.  (Ju.M.Missiox  or  Fi.sii  and  Fishimues, 

H'ashiii'jloii,  1).  C,  February  5,  1887. 

Sin:  SoniL'time  since.,  at  your  nniuest,  I  mailed  circulars  to  ownvrs  or  a<;ents  of  all 
X'W  l",M;^land  vessels  eniployod  in  the  food-lish  lishories.  Tliose  called  tor  full  statistics 
i)f  the  vessels"  o[»erations  dnrinj;  the  year  Irfsfti,  and,  in  atldition,  for  blatemiuitscf  any 
i  inconveniences  to  which  the  vessels  had  l)cen  .subjected  by  the  recent  action  of  the 
i'liiiuilian  (ioveniment  in  denying;  to  American  lisliing  v(issels  the  rij;h!  to  buy  bajt, 
ici',  or  other  suppli^^s  in  its  ports,  or  in  placin^•  unusual  restriclioiis  oa  the  use  of  its 
lliarhors  for  shelter. 

A  very  largo  percentage  of  the  rei»lies  to  these  circulars  have  already  been  received, 
jaiiilau  exannuation  of  sane  shows  that,  in  addition  to  the  vessels  mentioned  in- 
[the  revised  list  transmitted  by  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Committee  on  P'oreign 
iHeliitions  of  tlie  United  States  Smiate  on  January  '2(5,  1887,  sixty-eight  (ither  New 
lEn^jliuul  fishing  vessels  have  been  subjected  to  treatment  which  neither  the  treaty 
|(|f  1S18  nor  the  principles  of  international  law  ■vonld  seem  to  warrant. 


;  1 


\'% 


I''-' 


;--li| 


52 


THE    FI8IIE-RIES    TKKATY. 


I  inclose  for  your  con.sidoriition  a  list  of  these  vnssols,  to{j;cther  with  a  hiicf  ai,. 
str.act  of  tlio  stati'iiieiits  of  the  owners  or  masters  rci^ardiii.t;  the  troatiiieiit  riM-clvcd 
The  statetueiits  were  not  iiccoinpanied  by  Jitlidiivits,  l)iit  are  believed  to  Ix' eiilir.'lv 
reliable.     The  name  and  address  of  the  infoiniant  are  given  in  each  instance. 
Very  respectfully,  yours,  . 


K.  Edwaiu>  EAiii.i, 
In  charge  JJivinion  of  luxlurivif. 


Trof.  HPKNfKU  F.  Haiui), 

U.  S,  ComiitianioHvr  of  Fish  and  Fiaheriex 


r-VRTIAL  LIST  OI''  VKSSKLS  INVOr.VKD  I.V  TiriO  I'lSH  I'.ISIKS  (OX  TltOV'KRSY  WITH  THE 
CANADIAN'  AUTIIOHITIKS,  FKOM  IXFOH.MATIO.V  FUltMSIIKI)  TO  TIIK  UXITK.I)  STATKS 
COMMISSIOXKR   Ol-    KISir   AND   I'IPIIEHIKS. 

[SupplciiR'iitiiig  a  lint  triinsiiiittml  to  the  Conuulttco  on  l'\)rei;iu  Kclations,  United  Stiitis  Sinati',  Ijv 

tlio  Seciotary  of  State,  January  'M,  18^7.] 

1.  Eliza  A.  Thome-i  (schooner).  Portland,  Me.  ;  E.  .S.  I5ihl)s,  master.  Wiciki'il  ^m 
Nova  Sootia  shore,  and  unable  to  obtain  assisvance.  Crew  not  permitted  to 
land  or  to  save  anything'  until  iiermission  was  received  from  captain  of  ciitttf. 
Canadian  officials  placed  {{iiard  ovei-  lish  saved,  and  everythinj;-  saved  from 
■wi'eck  narrowly  escaped  conliscatioii.  (From  statements  of  C.  1).  'fliomc 
owner,  Fori  laud,  Me.) 

*2.  Chrifitiiia  EUmvortli  (schooner).      Eastport,  Me. ;  James  Ellswortii,  master.     Kn- 
tered  Port  Ha.stinn's,  Cajjo  JJrotou,  for  wood  ;  anchored  at  U)  o'clotdv,  and  w 
ported  at  custom-house.     At  2  o'clock  was  boarded  ))y  captain  of  cutUn'  Hcttdf 
and  ordered  to  sei,  being  forced  to  leave  without  wood.     In  every  liaibor  en- 
tered was  refused  privilege  of  buying  anything.     Anchored  uiuler  lee  of  laiiilj 
in  no  harbor,  but  was  compelled  to  enter  at  custom-house.     In  no  two  barbmsj 
were  the  fees  alike,     (l-'rom  stiitemeuts  of  James  Ell-iworth,  owner  ami  inastLT,] 
Eastport,  Me.) 

3,  Mary  E,  JF/io;/ (schooner).  Welllleet,  Mass.;  Simon  IJerrio,  master.     In  July,  I';';!'',! 

lost  seine  off  North  Cape,  Prince  Jvhvjird  Ishmd,  ami  not  tiUowed  to  make  any] 
nqtiiirs  on  shore,  causing  a  broken  voyage  and  a  long  delay.     Kan  short  of  pm 
visions,  and  being  denied  privilege  of  buying  any  on  lainl,  had  to  obtain  fii»iJ 
another  American  vessel.     (From   b  tatements   of  Freeman  A.  Snow,  owucij 
Welllieet,  Mass.) 

4.  Stoicell  Sherman  (schooner).     Provincetown,  Mass.;  S.  F.  Hatch,  master.     Xm 

allowed  'o  purchase  necessary  supplies,  and  obliged  to  report  at  custom-hoiisei| 
situated  at  distant  and  incouveuient  places;  ordered  out  of  harl)ors  in  stresst 
weather,  namely,  out  of  Cascuuipec  harbor,  Prince  Edward  Island,  uiiicti'ii 
hours  after  entry,  and  out  of  Malpe(iue  harbor,  Prince  Edward  Island,  lit'tii'J 
hours  after  enlry,  wind  then  blowing  too  hard  to  admit  of  lishing.  Kitiiiiiii 
Lome  with  broken  trip.  (From  statoments  of  Samuel  T.  Hatch,  owin  r  aiij 
master,  Provincetown,  Mass.) 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY, 


53 


ab- 
ved. 


Ill's, 


TU  nil'. 
>r.\.vi'.s 

Si;ii;it''.  liy 

;i;cki'.(l  on 
•inittfil  M 
of  cnltiv. 
iwi-d  tVtiin 
),  Thi'iii''^- 

istfV,  V-  - 
k,  and  IV- 
ItlfV  lk'ti"i' 

\,.o  of  i;»''i>U 

NVl)  llllvllllVSJ 
Uld  llKl^'''''tl 

I  July,  l"""ii 
|()  uKike  auyj 
Luort  of  pvoJ 
iobliiin  fv.Hiij 
liuw,  "wui'ij 

IlilHtlT.       N.»1 

stoiii-li'""''^^' 
L  in  stress 
Ind,  uinetw' 
[sliiud,  lift^'"! 
Ki-tunii 

I    owufi'  ui 


.').  ll'allLT  L.  Jiicli  (Hchooiwr).  WellHi^et.  Mii,s,s.  :  Ohadiiili  Ricli,  iiKistcu'.  < 'rdiTcdout 
of  MalpiMiiio,  P.  E.  I.,  ill  unsuitablo  weather  for  lisliinn,  bavin;;  bi-i'ii  in  barbor 
only  t\v(!lvo  hours.  Denied  ri^jlit  to  jmrchaHe  prox  i.'^ions.  Forced  to  enter  at  ciis- 
tmn  lumso  at  I'ort  l[;i,\vkeshury,  C.  H.,  on  Sunday,  collector  ftMrinu;  tliat  vessel 
would  leave  bidoro  Monday  and  be  would  thereby  lose  his  fet!.  (From  state- 
ments of  01>adiab  Rich,  owner  and  master,  Welllieet,  Mass.) 

{].  Ikriha  D.  Nickeraon  (schooner).  Booth  iiay,  Me. ;  N.  E.  Nickorson,  master.  Occa- 
sioned considerable  expense  iiy  bein;,;  denied  Canadian  ii.irliors  to  procuro 
crew,  and  detained  in  sprin;^  while  waitinj?  for  men  to  come  from  Nova  Sco- 
tia.    (From  statements  of  S,  Nickerson  it.  Sons,  fiwuers,  liootii  Hay,  Me.) 

T,  .\Vi('<'?/  />'. /7a/ct'>*  (schooner).  Welllieet,  Mass. ;  Thomas  C.  K'-nnedy,  master.  Re- 
fused privile^je  of  buyin<;  provisions  in  jxirts  on  Hay  Saint  Lawrence,  and  in 
cousequenco  obliged  to  lea\(  for  home  with  half  a  carijo.  Made  harbor  at 
Shelburiui,  Nova  Scotia,  in  face  of  storm,  at  5  p.  m.,  and  master  immediately 
started  for  cn.stom-house,  ,'>  iml<-s  distant,  meeting  i!ai»tain  of  cutter  Terror  ou 
way,  to  whom  he  explained  errand.  On  returning,  found  two  armed  men  from 
cutter  oil  bis  vessel.  At  7  o'clock  next  morning  was  ordercid  to  sea,  but  re- 
fused to  go  in  the  heavy  fog.  At  1)  o'clock  the  fog  lifted  .slightly,  and,  tiiough 
the  barometer  was  very  low  and  a  storm  imminent,  vessel  \v%*  forced  to  leave. 
Sjoii  met  tlu!  lauivy  gale,  which  split  sails,  causing  considerable  damage.  Cap- 
tain of  Terror  denied  claim  to  right  of  remaining  in  harbor  twenty-four  hours. 
(From  statements  of  T.  C.  Kennedy,  part  owuia-  and  master,  Wi-lltleet,  Mass.) 

?.  Hehti  F.  7Vw^c/,' (schooner),  Cape  rorjioise,  Me.;  R.  .1.  iVuiiaii,  master.  July  "JO 
l^SiS,  entered  Port  Latonr,  N,  ,S.,  for  shelter  and  water.  Was  unleriMl  imme- 
diately to  sea.  (From  statements  of  K.  .1.  Xiuiaii,  owner  and  mashr.  Cape  Por- 
poise, M(^) 

!'.  NeUie  M.  Snow  (schooner),  Welllieet,  Mass,;  A.  E.  Snow,  master.  Was  not  allowed 
to  imrelia.se  [irovisions  in  any  Canadian  jiorts,  or  to  retit  or  land  and  ship  tisli, 
conseiiuently  obliged  to  le.ive  for  home  with  broken  trip.  Not  permitted  to 
remain  in  ports  longer  than  local  Canadian  otiicials  saw  fit.  (From  statements 
of  .1.  C,  Young,  owner,  Welllieet,  Mass.) 

10.  Gertrude  SiinniKrs  (schooner),  Welllieet,  Mass.;  \.  S.  Snow,  master.  Refused 
privilege  of  purchasing  provisions,  which  resulted  in  injury  to  voyage.  Found 
harbor  regulati<nis  uncertain.  Someliims  could  remain  in  jioit  twenty-fonr 
hours,  again  was  ordered  out  in  three  hours.  (From  statements  ot  X.  S.  Snow, 
owner  and  master,  Welllieet,  Mass, ) 

|11,  ('linrlen  Jl.  W'aHhiuijton  (schooner),  Wtdllleet,  Mass.  ;  ,Jess(?  S.  Snow,  master. 
Master  was  infornuKl  liy  collector  at  Ship  Harbor, 'C.  H.,  that  if  he  bought 
provisions,  even  if  actually  u(!ce,ssary,  lu!  would  be  sult.ject  to  a  fine  of  !ti4(IO  for 
each  otfeiise.  Refused  permission  by  the  collector  at  Soiiris,  P.  E,  I,,  to  buy 
provisions,  and  was  compelled  to  return  home  September  ID,  before  close  of 
li.shing  .season.  AVas  obliged  to  report  at  custoin-house  every  time  he  entered 
a  harbor,  even  il"  only  for  shelt  'r.  Found  no  regularity  in  llie  aiiioiint  of  fees 
denianded,  this  being  apiiarently  at  the  option  of  the  collector.  (From  state- 
ments of  Jesse  S.  Snow,  owner  and  master,  Welltleet,  Mass,) 


lUl 


h^ 


■,;'  I 


M 


^'■ 


■  m 


m 

m 


m 


glm 


54  Till-:    FISHERIES    TREATY. 

12.  -IoIdi  M.  Ball  (schooner),  Provincetowu,  Mtiss.;  N.  VV.  Freeman,  lua.ster.  DriwMi 
out  of  Gulf  of  St.  Liiwreuco  to  avoid  fine  of  $400  for  landiuf^  two  lueu  iu  tlie 
port  of  Malpeque,  1'.  E.  I.  Was  denied  all  .supplioH,  except  wood  and  water, 
in  sauu!  port.  (From  statements  of  N.  W.  Freeman,  ov\Mier  and  maHter,  Prov- 
Ineelown,  llaHs.) 

13.  ^t'^//iii/»'(seliooni'i),  Eiistport,  Me. ;  Warren  Pultc,  nuLster.     Cleared  from  East  port, 

May  :U,  IjtBC),  under  reui.st(!r  for  West  Isles,  N.  K.,  to  buy  lierrinsi.  C'ollectov 
refused  to  enter  vess-'l,  telliuff  ea))tain  that  if  he  boufiht  fish,  which  wen- 
plenty  at  the  tiuK^,  the  vessel  would  bo  seized.  IJeturned  to  Eastport,  losiiiir 
about  a  week,  which  resulted  in  considerable  loss  to  owner  and  crew.  (I'rom 
statements  of  (iuilford  Mitchell,  owner,  Eastport,  Me.) 

14.  Ahilon   h'eeiH-  (schooner),  JJrenion,  Me.;  William  C.   Keene,  master.     Was  not  al- 

lowetl  to  ship  or  land  crew  at  Nova  Scotia  i)oits,  ami  owner  luid  to  ])ay  lor 
their  frausi)ortatiou  to  Maine.  (From  statements  of  \Villi;'.m  IJ.  Keene,  owner 
and  niiister,  liremen,  Me.) 

15.  /ri?/(aw  yi'iewr  (Nchooner),  Tori  land.  Me.  ;  Diiniel  Kimball,  mastei'.     Not  allowt'd 

to  ship  a  iiiiin  or  to  send  a  man  nshorc;  except  for  water,  at  Li\erpo()l,  N.  S,, 
and  ordered  tose;i  as  soon  as  water  was  obtained.  (From  statements  of  Hcinv 
Tref(;Mu'n,#\vuei',  Peak's  Jshnxl,  Me.) 

16.  Joint  yyi!  (sehooniu').  Swan's  Island,   INIe   :   W.    L.  .Joyce,  master.     Alter  paying' 

entry  fees  and  harbor  dues  was  not  allowed  to  buy  provisions  at  Miilpe<[ue,  1'. 
E.  I.,  an<l  li.id  to  return  home  for  same,  making  a  l)r<iken  trip.  (From  state- 
nu'Uts  of  \V.  L.  .loyce,  owner  and  master,  Atlantic,  Me.) 

17.  Asa  If.  I'oTcre  (schooner),  WelUleet,   Mass.;   A.  H.  (iore,  master.     Entered  har- 

bor forsheltei';  ordered  out  after 'i4  hours.  Denied  right  to  purchase  food, 
(From  statements  of  .^.  \V.  Kemp,  agent,  Welillect,  Mass.) 
IH.  Xdtliaii  Cicares  (svlioitwvi).  Wdllleet,  Mass. ;  V.  K.  Ifiekimin,  master.  Kan  short  of  | 
])rovisions,  and,  not  bring  }>erinitted  .ro  Iniy,  left  for  home  witli  a  broken  vovii<;f, 
Customs  otlieer  at  Poi't  Mulgra\'e,  No\a  Seoiia,  woiihl  allow  piireiiase  of  jiro- 
visions  for  homewaid  jiassage,  liiit  nut  to  continue  lishiug.  (From  siittenii'iits 
of  Parker  E.  Hickman,  owner  and  master,  WolUleet,  Mass.) 

19.  Frank  a.  Nidi  (sehooncM').   W'elltieet,  Mass. ;  Clmrles  A.  (Jorham,  imisiiM'.     Not  jierl 

mitted  to  buy  provisions  or  to  hiy  in  (.'iinailian  ports  over  t  wenly-four  lioiir.>. 
(l'"i'om  statements  of  Charles  A.  Uoriiani,  owner  ami  master,  Welillect,  Miiis.) 

20.  Emma    (J.    Cnrtin   (sidiooiHi).    J'id\  incetow  n,    Mass.  ;    Kiisha   Uich,  imister.    Xntj 

allov.i'd  to  iPiireiiasi  inovision.-,  and  tuerelbre  obliged  to  return  home.  (Fioiii| 
statements  of  Elisha  liich,  owner  and  masicr,  Pro\  incetown,  Mass.) 

21.  /'/e(«f/r«  (schooner).   Welillect,  Mass. ;   F.  W.  Snow,  mnster.     Driven  from  haiimrl 

within  tweiity-i'onr  lumrs  after  entering.  Not  allowed  to  ship  or  dis(;liar;;(j 
nu'U  under  jieiialty  (d' .'ii!4(l(J.  (From  statements  <d' F.  W.  Snow,  owner  ;iij| 
master,  Welllleet,  ilass. ) 

22.  C7(ar/«8  F.  .//ir(((»^  (schooner).  Welllleet,  Mass.;  Michael  Burrows,  nnister.    CaptaiJ 

was  imt  permitted  to  relit  vessel  or  to  buy  8ii|)plies,  and  when  out  of  food  lial 
to  retuin  home.     I'ouml  Cjinadians  disposed  to  harass  him  and  put  liiiiM 
Tnany  iiiconveniencies.     Nov  allowed  to  land  scdne  on  (-'aniuUan  shore  forpii 
poHO  of  repairing  same.     (From  slatements  of  Michael  Burrows,  owner  jsj 
nnister,  Welllleet,  Mass.) 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


55 


in  lilt! 

.vati-'v, 

Piov- 

oUcctitv 
■.\\   wen- 

I,  Umw'A 
(Vi-oiii 

s  not  ;\\- 
1  piiy  t'civ 
n<i  owner 

)t  iiHowcd 

ool,  N.  !^., 
rt  of  Henry 

ter  piiyinj; 

From  state- 

,uterei\  Iniv- 
■cluisc  I'otnl. 

Kiiu  shoit  of  I 

|,Ui-uvoyiiy;f. 

•llilSC  of  VID- 

111  siati'mt'iUsI 

L'V.     Not  per- 
ly-four  ll>""''' 
[icet.  Muss. 
I  master.    N"tj 

Lnie.     (l-"''""'l 

ti  from  luivli" 
Iv,  owner  'M 

lister.    C:i\itaij 

lit  of  f'>'»*  H 

lid  \Hit  bimi 

shore  for  \ 

Iws,  owner  si 


•2;?. 


•24, 


',';). 


•20. 


•2f^. 


•29. 


30. 


Gertie  May  (schooner).  Porthind,  Me. ;  I.  Douj^hty,  master.  Not  allowed,  thoiij^h 
provided  with  permit  to  touch  and  trade,  to  imrchaso  fresh  bait  in  Nova  Scotia, 
and  driven  from  harbors.  (From  statements  of  Charles  F.  Giiptill,  owner, 
Portland,  Me.) 

Margaret  S.  Smith  (scliooner).  Portland,  Me.;  Lincoln  W.  Jewett,  master.  Twice 
compelled  to  retnrn  home  from  Bay  of  St.  Lawrence  with  broken  trip,  not  be- 
ing able  to  secure  provisions  to  continue  flsbinji;.  Incurred  many  petty  incon- 
veniences in  regard  to  customs  regulations.  (From  statements  of  A.  M.  Smith, 
ownei',  Portland,  Me.) 

I'jisie  M.  .Smi^/i  (sehv)oner).  Portland,  Me, ;  Enoch  Buli^er,  master.  Came  home 
with  half  fare,  not  being  able  to  get  provisions  to  continue  fishing.  Lost  seine 
in  a  heavy  gale  rather  than  be  annoyed  by  customs  regulations  when  seeking 
shelter.     (From  statements  of  A.  M.  Smith,  Portland,  Me.) 

Fanniv  A.  SitiirVuKj  {iichoonev).  Portland,  Me. ;  Caleb  Parris,  luiister.  Subject  to 
many  annoyances,  and  oldigiMl  to  return  home  with  a  lialf  fare,  not  being 
able  to  procure  provisions.  (From  statements  of  A.  JL  vSir.itli,  owner,  Port- 
laud,  Me.) 

CarJeSon  /)t7/ (schooner).  Booth  Bay,  Me. ;  .Set  h  W.  Kid  ridge,  iiuisler.  Occasioned 
considerable  expense  by  being  denied  right  to  procure  crew  in  Ciiiiadiau  luir- 
bors,  and  detained  in  spring  while  waiting  for  men  to  come  from  Nova  Scotia. 
(From  statements  of  S.  Nickersou  Sl  Sons,  owners.  Booth  Bay,  Me.) 

AMm  M.  DeeriiKj  (schooner).  Portland,  Me.  ;  Emory  (iott,  master.  Not  being  able 
to  procure  provisions,  obliged  to  return  home  with  a  third  of  <i  fai^e  of  mackerel. 
(From  siatements  of  A.  M.  Smith,  owner,  Portland,  Me.) 

Cora  Louisa  (schooner),  Bootii  Bay,  Me. ;  Oi)ed  Harris,  master.  Could  get  no 
provisions  in  Canadian  jiorts  and  had  to  return  home  before  getting  full  fare  of 
lish.     (From  statemenls  of  S.  Nickersou  &.  Sons,  owners,  Bootli  Bay,  Mi;.) 

/•,"6e;(  !>«/<;  (schooner).  North  Haven,  Me. ;  R.  G.  Babbidge,  nnister.  Not  ])ermitted 
to  buy  bait,  ice,  or  to  trade  in  any  way.  Diiven  out  ot  harliors,  and  unreason- 
able restrictions  whenever  near  the  land.  (From  statements  of  K.  G.  Bai)bidge, 
owner  and  master.  Pulpit  Harbor,  Me.) 

Charh'8  Haskell  (wlinnnev).  North  H.-iven.Me.;  Daniel  Tlinrston,  master.  Obliged 
to  leave  Gn'if  of  St.  Lawrence  at  c(Misi(leral)le  loss,  not  beiiig  allowed  to  buy 
provisions.     (From  statemenls  of  C.  S.  Stajdes.  owner,  North  Haven,  Me.) 

Jri7/iV  Parkinan  (schooner).  North  Haven,  Me.:  William  H.  Banks,  master.  Unable 
to  get  supplies  wliile  in  (Julf  of  St.  Lawrence,  which  ne(!essitated  returning 
home  at  great  loss,  with  a  Inoken  voyage.  (From  statements  of  Williaui  H. 
Banks,  owner  and  master.  North  Hav(!n,  Mt>.) 

D.  I).  lUjin  (schooner).  Portland,  Me.;  Ji^liii  K.  Craig,  master.  Being  refused 
privilege  oi*  touching  at  a  Nova  Scotia  port  to  take  ou  resident  crew  already 
engaged,  owner  was  obliged  to  jirovido  passage  for  men  to  I'ortland,  at  con- 
siderable cost,  causing  great  loss  of  time,  (From  statements  of  F.  II.  .Jordan, 
owner,  Purlland,  Me.) 


il^''!' 


i'l 


m 


m 


<  rM 


W'^A 


56 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


34.   (rood  Templar  {Hdhoonav).  Portland,  Mo. ;  Elias  Tarlton,  master.     Touched  at  I,n 
Have,  Nova  Scotia,  to  take  on  crow  already  enj^aj^ed,  l»iit  was  refii.Hod  privili ;;( 
and  ordered  to  proceed.     The  men  beinj;  indiMpensabh)  to  voyage,  had  them  (h> 
livered  on  board  outside  of  three-limit  by  a  Nova   Scotia  boat.     (From  .state- 
ments of  Henry  Trefethen,  owner,  Peak's  Island,  Maine.) 

3.").  Eddie  7>ar/V?«oH  (.scboonerV  WellHeet,  Mass.;  .lolin  D.  Snow,  master.  .Jmn'  1}, 
1886,  touched  at  Capo  Island,  Nova  Scotia,  but  was  not  permitted  to  take  oii 
part  of  crew.  Boarded  by  customs  othcer  and  ordered  to  sail  within  twentv- 
four  hours.  Not  allowed  to  buy  food  in  jjorts  on  (Jiilfof  Si.  Lawrence.  (!'r(]iii 
statements  of  John  1).  Snow,  owner  and  nuister,  Welldeet,  Mass.) 

36.  Alice  P.  IlUjijlns  (.schooner).   Weldleet,  Mass.;   Alvin  W.  Cobb,  master.     Driven 

from  harbors  twice  in  stress  of  weather.  (From  statements  of  Alvin  \V.  C'olib, 
master,  WellHeet,  Mass.) 

37.  Cynoaiire  (schooner).  Mooth  Hay,  Me.;  L.  Rush,  master.     Was  ohlij>fd  to  rctiuii 

lionie  before  secnrinij  a  full  carfjo,  not  beinjj  pernutted  to  purchase  provision.s 
in  Nova  Scotia.  (From  statements  of  S.  Nickerson  ».t  Sons,  owners,  Rooth  Bav. 
Me.) 

38.  Naiad  (.schooner).   Luliec,  Me. ;    Walter  Kennedy,   master.      Presented  frontier 

license  (heretofore  acceptable)  on  arriving  at  St.  Georjie,  N.  B.,  but  collector 
would  not  reeojiuize  same  :  was  compelled  to  return  to  Eastport  and  clear  un- 
der register  before  being  allowed  to  purchase  herring,  thus  losing  one  trip. 
''From  statements  of  Walter  Kennedy,  master,  liUbec,  Me.) 

39.  Louisa  J.  (IroHt  (schooner).  Provincetown,  Mass.;   .Joseph    Hatch,  jr.,  master. 

Took  ])ermit  to  touch  and  trade;  arrived  at  St.  Peter's,  Cape  lireton,  in  after- 
noon of  May  Id,  lf-'H6;  entered  and  cleared  according  to  law;  was  obliged  to 
take  ini'xperienced  men  at  their  own  prices  to  complete  fishing  crew,  to  get  to 
sea  before  the  arrival  of  a  seizing  officer  who  had  started  from  Straits  of  Caii.so 
at  5  o'clock  same  afternoon  in  search  of  vessel,  having  been  advistid  b,\  tele- 
graph of  the  shipjiing  of  men.  (From  statements  of  .Jose])h  Hateh,  jr.,  owner 
and  mnstiT,  Provincetown,  ilass.) 

40.  Lottie  E.   Hophns  (schooner).   Vinal    Haven,  Me. ;    Emery  .T.   Hojikins,  master. 

Refn.sed  jiermission  to  buy  any  article  of  food  in  Canadian  ])orts.  Obtainoil 
shelter  in  iiarbors  only  by  entering  at  custom-house.  (From  statement  of 
Emery  .T.  Hopkins,  owner  and  master.  North  Haven,  Me.) 

41.  F/or/zx' 7".  A'(>/i(".soH  (schooner).  Chatham,  Mass.;  Nathaniel  E.  Eldridge,  master. 

Engaged  fisliernien  fi»r  vessel  at  Liverpool,  Nova  Scotia,  but  action  of  Canadian 
Governui(>nt  necessitated  the  paying  of  their  transportation  to  the  FnitKl 
States  and  loss  of  time  to  vessel  while  .awaiting  their  ariival ;  otherwise  would 
have  called  for  them  on  way  to  tishing-grounds.  Returning,  touched  at 
Liverpool,  but  innnediately  on  anchoring,  Camidian  officials  came  aboard  ami 
refused  i)ermission  for  men  to  go  ashore.  Captain  at  onec;  signitied  his  inten- 
tion of  immediately  proceeding  on  passage,  but  officer  prevented  his  di^iiart- 
ure  until  he  had  reported  at  custom-house,  vessel  being  thereby  detaini'i! 
two  days.  (.From  statementot  Kendrick  A:  Bourse,  owners,  South  Harwieii 
Mass.) 


carji 


THE    PI.S1IERIES    TREATY. 


hi 


1  (!(•■ 
Vali'- 

<■  \% 
kc  on 
cnly- 

i)riv('U 
Colli., 

I  rcinrn 
)visions 
itli  Buy, 

frontier 

I'ollcrtor 
clear  lui- 
one  trip. 

iiiiisti'r. 

in  after- 
iblim'<l  to 

to  ^ot  to 

of  Ciui^o 
|l  by  tcle- 

)■,,  owiii'r 

niastev. 
loiitaim'd 

CMlU'Ut    ol' 

Ic,  niasti'i'. 

Icaiiadiiiu 

[lOi  Uiiit'd 
i-jso  would 
Luclu'd  :it 

Iboanl  aiul 
Ihisintpu- 

liis  dci'i"'- 

dftaiiu'i! 

llarwii-ii- 


4-2.  l'>.  r>.  Jl.  (.iloop),  Kiistport,  Ml!.;  Goor^^o  w.  Copii,  niasti-r.  Obligeil  to  iliscontiiniti 
business  of  bnyiiiu;  sardine  herrinj;'  in  New  Urunswick  ports  for  Eastport  ean- 
neries,  as  local  cnstoins  regnliitions  wt^re,  durini;'  the  season  of  IdSl!,  made  so 
exacting  that  it  was  impossible  to  comidy  with  them  witliont  risk  of  tlie  tish 
becoming  stah<  and  si)oilcil  by  detention.  (From  statements  of  George  ^^^  ('o])i>, 
master,  East  port,  Me.) 

4;i.  Sir  Kuight  (scliooner).  Sontliport,  Me.;  Mark  Hand,  master.  Compelled  to  \tw\ 
transportal  ion  for  crew  from  Nova  Scotia  to  Maine,  the  vessel  not  being  allowed 
to  call  at  Nova  Scotia  j)orts  for  thenKMi  her  way  to  the  lishing-gronnds.  (From 
statennnits  of  William  T.  iladdocks,  owner,  Sontiiport,  Me.) 

44.  I'uclt  •Joe  (schooiu'r),  Sonthport,  Mo.;  J.  W.  Pierce,  nnister.  Comixdled  to  p.'iy 
transjjortation  for  crew  I'rom  NovaSciotia  to  Maine,  the  vessel  not  being  allowed 
to  call  at  Nova  Scotia  ports  tor  them  on  lier  way  to  the  tishing-gronnds.  (From 
statenu-nts  of  William  T.  Maddox,  owner,  Soiithport,  Me.) 

4."),  Wil'it  G.  (schooner).  Sonthport,  Me. ;  Albert  F.  Orne,  nnister.  Conii)elled  to  ])ay 
transportation  for  crew  from  Nova  Scotia  to  Maine,  the  vessel  not  being  iil- 
Jow<!d  to  call  at  Nova  Scotia  ports  for  them  on  her  w>iy  to  the  fishing-grounds. 
(Fr«)ni  statements  of  William  T.  Maddocks,  owner,  Sonthport,  Me.) 

4f).  Lady  Ehjin  (scliooner).  Southjiort,  Me. ;  George  W.  Pierce,  nnister.  Compelled 
to  pay  transportation  for  crew  from  Nova  Scotia  to  Maine,  the  vessel  not  being 
allowed  to  call  at  Nova  Scotia  ports  for  them  on  her  way  to  the  fishing  grounds, 
(From  statements  of  William  T.  Maddocks,  owner,  Sonthport,  Me.) 

47.  John  II.  Kiuncdij  (schooner).  Poitland,  Me. ;  David  IJonglnn'ty,  nnister.  Called 
at  a  Nova  Scotia  i>ort  for  bait,  but  left  without  obtaining  same,  fearing  seizure 
and  fine,  returning  home  with  a  broken  voyage.  At  a  Newfoundland  port  was 
charged  -Slti  light-house  dues,  giving  draft  on  owners  for  same,  which,  being 
ex^^cssive,  they  refused  to  pay  (From  statements  of  E.  G.  Willard,  owiu>r, 
Portland,  Me.) 

4"i,  Iiipli'U  liopeti  (schooner).  Sonthport,  Me. ;  C.  E.  Hare,  master.     \'essel  ready  to 
sail  when  telegram  from  authorities  at  Ottawa  refused  permissi(ni  to  touch  at 
Canadian  |)ort8  to  ship  men;  consequently  oblig(,'d  to  pay  for  tlnnr  trans|iorta- 
tion  to  Maine,  iind  vessel  detained  while  await ini;  their  arrival.     (From  slate- 
mcnts  of  Freeman  <^rne  &  Son,  owners,  Sonthport,  Me.) 
10.  Jennie  Afmntrotuj   (schooner).    Sonthjiort,  Me.;   A,    O.  Webber,   nnister.     Vessel 
reaily  to  sail  when  telegram  from  authorities  at  Ottawa  refused  permission  to 
touch  at  Canadian   ports  to  ship  men;  consequently  obliged    to  jiay  lor  their 
transi)ortation    to   Maine,  and   vessel  detaini^d   while   awaiting    their  arrival. 
(From  statements  of  Freeman  (^nio  iV  Smi,  owners,  Sonthport,  Me.) 
Vuufinnrd  {tichinnwv).  Sonthiioit,  Me.;  C.  C.  Dyer,  master.     Vessel  ready  to  sail 
when  telegram  from  authorities  refused  i»ermission  to  touch  at  Canadian  ports- 
to  shi|)  men;  consei|ueutly  obliged  to  pay  for  their  transportation  to  Maiiu^, 
and  vessel  detained  while  awaiting  their  arrival.     (From  statennnits  of  Free- 
man Orne  »fc  Son,  owners,  Sonthiiort,  Me.) 
Electric  Flash  (scliooner).   North  Haven,  Me.;  Aaron  Smith,  master.    Unable  to  ob- 
tain suitplies  in  Canadian  [xn'ts  and  obliged  to  return  home  before  obtai'ung 
full  cargo.     (From  statisments  of  Aanni  Smith,  master  and  agent.  North  Ha- 
ven, Me.) 


"i'l 


'■'P\ 


r  ;n^;" 


\  l|!l 


tIfP 


Jillil' 


^^^i 


1i>  ;: 


1 .1 "  i: 


58 


THE    FISHERIE8    TREATY. 


52. 


53. 


54. 


55. 


56. 


57. 


58. 


5'J. 


60. 


61. 


>62. 


Daniel  SimnwnH  (sdhooner).  Swan's  Island,  Mo,;  .John  .\.  (rott,  nnster.  Ci)ni])olle(l 
to  go  without  TiPccssiiry  outfit  while  lishingiu  (riilf  of  St.  Lawrence.  (Fiom 
statements  of  M.  Stinii»son,  owner,  Swan's  Island,  Me.) 

Grorer  Clevrlaiid  (hvAhmw.t).  Hostoti,  Mass.:  George  I^akenian.  master.  ComitcUiMl 
to  return  home  with  only  partial  fare  of  n)acUerel,  being  refused  supplies  in 
Canadian  ports.     (From  statements  of  U.  F.  De  Hutts,  owner,  Boston,  Mass.) 

jiiidrew  liiiniliam  (schooner).  Boston,  Mass.;  Natlian  F.  Blake,  master.  Not  uj. 
lowed  to  liny  provisions  or  to  land  and  ship  lish  to  Boston,  thereby  losing  vnl- 
uable  time  f(u-  fishing.  (From  '.■statements  of  IJ.  F.  D^  Butts,  owner,  Boston, 
Mass. ) 

Harrtj  (r.  /'Vt'/ic/i  (schooner).  (Jloueester,  Mass;  J(diu  (Jhisholm.  master.  Rctiisid 
permission  to  purchast;  any  provisions  or  to  land  caigr)  for  siiipuHint  to  tlic 
United  States.  (From  statenKints  of  .John  (Jhisholm.  owner  and  master,  Gioii- 
cester,  Mass.) 

Col.  J.  H.  French  (schooner),  (illoucester,  Masn. ;  William  Harris,  master.  Was 
refused  permission  to  purchase  any  supplies,  or  to  forsvard  fish  to  the  lioiiio 
port  by  steamer,  causing  much  loss  of  time  .and  money.  (From  sratemeiits  of 
John  Chisholm,  owner,  Gloucester,  Mass.) 

TV.  H.  U'clli II gton  (HchooMfT).  Gloucester,  Mass. ;  D.  S.  Nickerson,  master.  Wns 
refused  permission  to  purchase  any  sujtplies,  or  to  forward  tish  to  the  home 
port  by  steamer,  causing  much  loss  of  time  and  money.  (From  statements  of 
John  Chisholm,  owner,  Gloucester,  Mass.) 

Ralph  llodijdon  (schooner).  Gloucester,  Mass. ;  Thomas  F.  Hodgdon,  master.  Was 
refused  pevmission  to  purchase  any  supplies,  or  to  forward  fish  to  tiie  lionu' 
])ort  by  steamer,  causing  much  loss  of  time  and  money.  (From  statements  of 
John  Chisholm,  owner,  Gloucester,  Mass.) 

Hiiltic  lu-clyn  (schooner).  Gloucester,  Mass. ;  .James  A.  Cromwell,  muster.  Xdt 
allowed  To  l)ny  any  provisions  in  any  provincial  ports,  ami  thereby  compelled 
to  return  home  <luring  the  iisliing  season,  causing  lu'oken  voyage!  ami  great 
loss.  (From  statements  of  Jaums  A,  Cromwell,  owner  ami  master,  Gloucester, 
ISIass.) 

Einma  \V.  ilrowii  (schooner).  Gloucester,  Mass. ;  .John  McFarlaud,  master.  Was 
forbidden  buying  any  provisions  at  provincial  jtorts,  and  thereliy  lost  three 
weeks'  time,  and  was  compelled  to  niturn  home  with  only  i)art  of  caigd. 
(From  statements  of  .John  McFarlaud,  master,  Gloucester,  Ma.S8.) 

Mari/  H.  r/fOHnts  (schooner).  Gloucester,  Mass.;  Henry  B.  Thomas,  master.  Pro- 
hildted  from  buying  provisions,  and,  in  consecpience,  had  to  return  home  before 
close  of  Iisliing  season.  (From  statements  of  Henry  B.  Thomas,  owner  iiiid 
unisttu',  Gloucester,  Mass.) 

HttUieB.  Jresf  (schooaor).  Gloucester,  Mass.;  C.  H.  Jackman,  master.  Preventeil 
from  buying  provisions  to  enable  vessid  to  continue  fishing.  Two  of  crew  de- 
serted in  a  Canadian  port,  and  captain  went  ashore  to  report  at  custom-house 
and  to  secure  return  of  men.  Was  delayed  by  customs  ofticer  not  being  at  liis 
post,  and  ordered  to  sea  by  first  ofticer  of  cutter  Iloivhtt  before  having  an  oii- 
portunity  of  reporting  at  custom-house  or  of  finishing  busiuess.     Had  to  return 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


69 


and  n4)i>it  on  samo  d.ty  or  b(i  subject  to  lino.     Piovonteil  fnMu  .shippin;^  niou  at 
same  plat.e.     At  Port  Hawkesbiuy,  Nova  .Scotia,  while  on  hoiuowanl  passage, 
not  allowod  to  take  on  board  crew  of  seized  Ainericau  fishing  8cliooiier  Moro 
Canfle,  wiio  ihssired  to  return  liome.     (From  (Statements  of  C.  H.   .lackmaii, 
master,  Olonciister,  Mass.) 
o'.?.   Ethel  Hand  {Hiihnowor).  Grloucester,  Mass. ;  George  H.  Martin,  master.     Provided 
witli  a  United  States  permit  to  touch  and  trade,  entered  Tigiiisli,  Prince  Ed- 
ward  Island,  to  purcljase  salt  and  barrels.     Was  prohibited  from  buying  any- 
thing.     Collector  was  offered  permit,   but  declared  it  to  be  worthless,  and 
would  not  examine  it.     Vessel  obliged  to  return  home  for  articles  mentioned. 
On  second  trip  was  not  permitted  to  get  any  food.    (From  statements  of  George 
H.  Martin,  owner  and  master,  East  Giouce.«ter,  Mass.) 

04.  John  /r.  7)'rrt// (schooner).  Gloucester,  Mass.;  George  McLean,  master.  "On  ac- 
count of  extreme  prohibitory  measures  of  the  Canadian  Government  in  refusing 
shelttT,  sn])itlii's,  and  other  conveniences,  was  obliged  to  abandon  her  voyage 
and  come  home  without  lish."  (From  statements  of  John  F.  Wonsou  A  Co., 
owners.  Gloucester,  Mass.) 

ti'i.  Henry  JV.  LoufeUm*  (schooner).  Gloucester,  Mass.  ;  W.  W.  King,  master. 
Obliged  to  leave  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  with  only  ti<J  barrels  of  niMckerel,  on 
account  of  restrit.'tious  imi)osed  by  Canadian  Government  in  lU'cvenling  cap- 
tain from  procuring  necessary  supplies  to  continue  lishing.  (l-'rom  statements 
of  John  F.  Wonson  &  Co.,  owners,  (iloucester,  jMass.) 

fit!.  EnshlUjht  (schooner).  (;iou<;ester,  Mass.  ;  James  L.  Kenney,  masttM'.  Compelled 
to  leave  Gull'  of  St.  Lawrence  with  ouly  DO  barrels  of  mackerel,  Itecanse  of  re- 
strictions imposed  l»y  Canadiiin  Government  in  i)rohiliiting  captain  troni  pur- 
chasing supplies  needed  to  continue  tishing.  (From  siatcments  of  John  F. 
Wonson  «fc  Co.,  owners,  Gloucester,  Mass.) 

07.  BiUe   Fraiiklhi   (schooner).    Gloucester.    Mass.;     Henry    D.    KeiidricU,    innster. 

Obliged  to  leave  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  with  l.">li  barrtds  of  mackerel,  on  account 

*  of  I'csirictioiis  imposeil   by  Canadian   Government  in    denying  to  captain  the 

right  to  procure  necessarv  suf»[)lics  to  continue  tishing.     (From  statements  of 

.John  F.  Wonson  &.  Co.,  owners,  Gloucester,  Mass.) 

(W.  .Ve/)onscf  (schooner ).  Hoston,  Mass. ;  E.  S.  Frye,  nnistci'.  AngustvJT,  1*8(;.  anchored 
in  Port  Hawkesbiiry,  C.  B.,and  immediately  reported  .it  custiun  house.  Heing 
short  of  i)rovisions,  master  asked  collector  for  permission  to  buy,  but  was  twice 
refused.  The  master,  exi)ressing  his  intention  of  seeing  the  United  States  consul 
at  Port  Hastings,  C.  B.,  3  miles  distant,  (he  customs  ollicer  forbade  him  land- 
ing at  that  port  to  see  the  consul.  He  did  so,  however,  saw  the  consul,  but  could 
got  no  aid,  the  consul  stating  that  if  provisions  wiM'e  furnished  the  vesscfl  svould 
be  seized.  Master  l)eiug  sick  aud  wishing  to  return  home  by  rail,  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  consul  he  landed  st^crerly  and  traveltMl  through  the  woods  to  the 
station,  o  miles  distant.  (From  statements  of  H.  S.  Frye,  owuer  and  master, 
Boston,  Mass.) 

Ill  1880  700  vessels  were  boarded,  and  1,302  in  1887,  to  investigate 
their  conduct,  of  which  30  were  bronglit  to  the  attention  of  the  British 
Government. 


!    'I 


is; 


■::!,    I 


I  ¥ 


60 


THE    I'lHlIEKIKS     IKEATY. 


Tlu'.so  lists  comprise,  in  all,  iie.ii'ly  KM)  vessels  tliar  have  been  involved 
ill  seizures  and  other  iiiterfereiiees  jjrowiii},^  out  of  disputed  coiisti  iic- 
tioiis  of  the  treaty  of  1818. 

That  so  many  cases  have  arisen  ont  of  this  conflict  of  opinion  is,  in 
part,  fairly  attributable  to  an  aggressive  teiiii)er  on  the  part  of  the  Caii;i. 
dians,  which  has  not  been  successfully  restrained  by  the  Govorinneiit  of 
Great  JJritain,  and  to  an  obstinate  .adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  treaty. 
to  the  sacrifice  of  its  spirit  and  to  the  i)rejudice  of  the  "liberties"  and 
"privileges"  secured  by  its  terms  to  American  fishermen,  as  pur  (lov- 
ernnient  understands  the  matter. 

The  treaty  had  reference  to  extensive  lines  of  sea-coast  npon  wliicli 
the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  were  as  well  known  by  name  and  lociition 
in  181S  as  they  are  now,  but  they  were  not  exactly  described  in  tliat  in- 
struraent. 

It  can  not  be  assnmed,  at  least  in  our  diplomacy,  that  it  is  irrational 
or  nncandid  for  the  British  Government  to  contend  that  the  entraiioe 
of  these  places,  so  well  known,  was  intended  to  designate  a  baseline 
from  which  to  measure  the  .'i mile  limit,  within  which  we  forever  re- 
nonnced  the  right  to  take  or  cure  or  dry  fish. 

Our  construction  has  been  that  we  did  not  renounce  these  "liberties" 
in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks,  except  within  3  miles  of  the  coasts 
thereof,  while  the  British  contention  has  been  that  the  word  "coasts'" 
in  the  treaty  relates  only  to  the  open  sea-coasts,  and  not  to  the  coasts 
of  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  that  are  claimed  and  controlled  by  the 
provincial  governments  as  territorial  waters. 

The  British  contention  is  also  fortilied  by  the  argument,  as  they  in- 
sist, that,  in  the  proviso  to  article  1  of  the  treaty,  our  right  to  enter 
for  shelter,  wood,  water,  and  repairs,  is  limited  to  "  bays  or  harbors" 
and  does  not  extend  to  "creeks''  or  to  "coasts,"  and  that  these  were 
not  o[)ened  to  our  right  of  entry,  because  of  the  diliic-ulty  of  enforcing 
the  "restrictions"  upon  the  use  of  these  privileges,  to  which  we  gave 
our  consent  in  the  treaty,  on  the  coasts  and  creeks,  at  places  remote 
from  their  ports. 

It  has  been  the  duty  of  our  diplomatists,  forced  upon  them  by  tlif 
importance  of  our  interests,  to.endeavor  to  overcome  these  contention.s 
of  the  British  Government,  and  to  insist  upon  a  more  liberal  con- 
struction of  the  treaty. 

The  task  has  not  been  an  e^isy  one,  and  the  progress  we  have  made 
is  scarcely  discernible;  lor  no  admitted  change  in  British  opinion  seems 


THK    FISHKRIES    TREATY. 


Gl 


to  have  boon  accomplisliiMl  in  resi)LM;t  of  the  pxchision,  from  our  ticaty 
ri<ihts  of  lishory,  of  tlie  creeks,  bays,  ami  harbors  whose  names,  limits, 
ami  h)eation  were  known,  an<l  were  recof^nized  by  their  hiws  as  terri- 
torial waters  in  1818,  exeei»t  in  reference  to  the  Bay  of  Fnndy. 

In  18r)4  and  in  1871  we  submerged  these  questions  beneath  others  of 
jjreat  importance,  and  paid  heavily,  in  recijn'ocal  taritt  arrangements  in 
one  case,  and  in  money  in  the  other  instance,  for  the  security  and  pro- 
tection of  our  tishermen  against  the  British  head-land  theory,  as  they 
<!laime<l  it,  in  territorial  waters,  ami  for  the  right  of  inshore  tisiiing. 

On  the  other  bran<;h  of  the  subject,  relating  to  the  i)romulgation  and 
enforcement  of  "such  re>itrictions  as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent  *  *  * 
abusing  the  i)rivileges  *  *  *  reserved  to"  AnuM'ican  tisheinieii,  the 
cases  have  been  more  numerous,  the  discussions  nn)ro  heated,  the  inter- 
ferences with  our  tishernieu  and  their  vessels,  and  with  other  vessels, 
more  ainu»ying  and  damaging,  than  those  that  have  arisen  under  the 
liead  land  theory. 

In  most  of  these  cases  the  provincial  courts,  or  the  ])rivy  council  of 
tUe  local  governments,  have  made  deciisions,  or  statements,  expounding 
tiieir  laws,  both  provincial  and  imperial,  and  insisting  upon  their  right 
and  jurisdiction,  under  the  treaty,  to  do  all  that  has  been  done  by  them 
to  onr  flshermen,  except  in  the  atiair  of  Fortune  J>ay. 

What  is  sometimes  termed  the  reciprocity  of  Ls.'iO,  by  which  the  in- 
terdict on  commercial  intercourse  between  the  North  American  British 
Provinces  and  the  United  States  was  relieved,  and  commercial  inter- 
course was  established  on  a  liberal  footing,  gave  to  our  merchant  ships 
extensive  privileges  that  the  treaty  of  1818,  under  the  British  construc- 
tion, denied  to  our  tishing  vessels. 

This  so-called  reciprocity  was  not  established  by  positive  law  in  either 
country;  but,  uiuler  the  proclamation  of  President  Jackson,  authorized 
by  law,  and  under  the  ordi  rs  of  the  Privy  Council  of  Great  Britain,  the 
liberties  of  commerce  were  mutually  accorded  to  the  merchant  ships  of 
each  country  in  the  i)orts  of  the  other.  We  will  hereafter  refer  more 
particularly  to  that  arrangement. 

Many  of  our  tishing  vessels  being  licensed,  under  our  laws,  to  touch 
iiiid  trade  ia  foreign  ports,  onr  Government  has  since  claimed  fur  them 
ill  Canadian  ports  the  hospitality  accorded  to  our  other  merchant  ves- 
sels and  all  the  liberties  that  they  enjoy. 

This  reasonable  claim  was  based  upon  the  new  conditions  of  our  com- 
mercial intercourse  with  Canada  as  established  by  "the  reciprocity  of 
1830." 


•'i 


"  \ 


Vi\ 


Jfl'lS 


r.v':;": 


ill 


lit 


3!'! 


62 


THE    FISIIHRIKS    TKKATY. 


Jt  was  mot  with  the  (Iwilaiatioii  that  Aini'iicaii  HsIumiiu'ii  and  tlicir 
vessels  had  only  the  riji'hts,  in  danadlaii  waters  and  ports,  that  aic 
expressly  reserved  to  them  iiiiiler  the  treaty  of  l.Sl.S;  and  that  all  orlicr 
rights  are  <leiiied  to  them  by  that  treaty;  and  the  further  insistaiicc 
that  the  United  States  can  confer  no  other  rights  up'^n  them,  in  tliosc 
waters,  than  such  as  the  treaty  j;i^'<^s  them  in  their  character  as  lishci- 
men. 

This  question  has  led  to  serions  disagreement  and  has  hccn  iiiia 
voidably  mixed  up  wiili  the  question  of  the  i)roi)er  construction  of  tlic 
treaty  of  181S. 

This  l)lendinff  of  these  subjects  has  resulted,  in  part,  from  the  en- 
larged privileges  8e<!ured  to  our  lishermen  in  the  treaties  of  iSal  and 
1871,  and  from  the  British  laws  and  regulations,  under  which  no  express 
distinction  is  made  between  fishing  vessels  and  purely  commercial 
vessels  as  to  entrance  and  clearance;  port  and  harbor  dues;  pilotagti 
and  tonnage  dues;  the  right  to  tlemand  manifests  and  to  ins])ect  (largoes. 

They  emjdoy  their  regulations,  prescribed  for  commercial  vessels,  to 
l)revent  fishing  vessels  from  having  shelter  for  more  than  twenty-fonr 
hours  in  a  bay  or  harbor;  or  from  obtaining  water  or  wood,  or  makin<;' 
repairs,  unless  they  have  been  duly  entered  in  the  custom-house  and 
have  conformed  to  all  the  regulations  that  apply  to  merchant  vessels. 

The  denial  of  every  commercial  privilege  to  our  lishermen,  even  to 
the  supply  of  wants  that  humanity  demaiuls,  while  imposing  upon  tlieni 
every  "restriction"  that  merchant  vessels  were  required  to  endure, 
naturally  excited  the  indignation  of  our  people. 

The  contrast  between  the  treatment,  in  these  re.spe<'ts,  of  niercliant 
vessels  of  all  nations  (iticluding  those  of  the  [Jnited  States)  and  our 
fishing  vessels  was  painful  and  unjust,  as  it  was  unnecessary,  and  placed 
the  men  engaged  in  an  honorable  and  higlily  useful  pursuit  under  tlie 
ban  of  unjust  and  unfriendly  discriieination,  and  branded  them  as  per- 
sons against  whom  there,  was  a  general  and  recognized  suspicion  of  bad 
charactei- or  of  unworthy  designs. 

During  the  interval  between  1S18  and  IS'Mi  the  treaty  of  1818  t'lir- 
nished  the  oidy  rule,  etjuitable  or  legal,  for  the  admeasurement  of  tiie 
rights  of  our  fishermen. 

Since  1830,  except  when  the  treaties  of  18r4  and  1871  were  in  foicc. 
the  British  Govern  nuMit,  instead  of  relaxing'  the  "restrictions"  upon  our 
fishermen,  has  increased  them,  and  has  been  very  alert  in  conlinins 
them  to  the  strict  letter  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  whenever  that  has  oper- 
ated, as  to  their  fishing  and  other  liberties  and  privileges. 


THE    FISIIEKIKS    TUEATV. 


6a 


II. 


WIIF/rilKR  IT  IS  Ol'R  WISEST  AND  SAFEST  I'OIJCY  TO  KKSORT  TO  THE 
LAWS  OF  NATIONS.  KNFOUCKD  MY  AM.  MKASl'l.'ES  THAT  MAY  HE  NEO- 
ESSAUY,  OR  TO  TKFATY  AURANCE.MKNTS,  FOR  THE  REOI'LATION,  (H:N- 
EKALLY,  OF  OUK  FISHI\(J  RltHITS? 

It  is  quite  v]vi\v  tliiit,  mitil  we  are  free  tVom  the  oblijiiitloiis  of  tlio 
treaty  of  ISl.S,  tliey  are  a  part  of  our  sniut'iru'  law,  wliieli  no  departmeiit 
of  our  own  (loveniuieut  ean  violate  witliout  violatiuj:^  our  Conistitution. 

As  tlie  treaty  is  ijeqietual  in  tlie  reuuneialion  ol'oui'  rifilit  of  coiuinon 
fisliery,  partitioned  to  us  as  an  ai»i>anajie  of  tlio  country  wliose  inde- 
jiendence  we  established,  we  can  not,  by  any  means  short  of  a  success- 
ful war,  re-instate  the  United  States,  by  our  own  acr,  in  the  enjoyment 
of  the  lijjlit  that  was  so  renounced. 

We  can  free  ourselves  of  any  embarrassment  arising-  out  of  the 
treaty  of  I.SIS,  as  to  our  lisheimeu,  licensed  to  touch  ami  trade,  by 
repealing  it,  but  nobody  seems  to  desire  such  a  course  of  action,  or 
to  court  the  situation  in  which  it  would  ])lace  both  countries. 

The  struggle,  in  such  an  event,  would  be  at  once  renewed  under 
retaliatory  laws  (if  this  treaty  is  rejected);  but  every  movement  in 
snch  a  policy  would  be  very  costly  to  the  people  of  both  countries, 
and,  as  a  probable  result,  would  eventuate  in  war. 

So,  we  must  live  under  the  treaty  and  be  constantly  embroiled  with 
the  British  Government  as  to  its  proper  interpretation  ;  or  we  must 
reform  that  interpretation  by  a  fair  and  just  agreement  with  that  (lov- 
ernment;  or  we  must  repeal  or  abandon  it,  aiul  then  rely  upon  retalia- 
tion to  redress  our  wrongs. 

The  demand  of  our  fishermen  for  au  enlargement  of  their  commensal 
l)rivileges,  to  corresi)ond  with  those  of  our  merchant  vessels,  and  for  a 
more  liberal  hospitality  in  their  bays,  is  the  pith  and  essence  of  our 
demand  for  a  more  liberal  interi)retation  of  the  treaty  of  1S18. 

This  donumd  has  to  a  great  degree  grown  out  of  the  changed  con- 
ditions, both  of  tishing  ventures  and  commercial  intercourse,  with  the 
British  provinces  since  1830. 

It  was  not  considered  in  1818,  but  it  can  not  be  denied  consideration 
MOW,  in  view  of  these  changed  conditions. 

It  is  insisted  by  some  that  the  treaty  of  1818  gives  no  commercial 
rights  to  our  tishing  vessels;  that  it  relates  only  to  fishing  rights  and 
to  «onie  incidental  privileges  of  hosi)itality  accorded  to  our  fishermen;. 


I  .>! 


ilfPS 

III 


4' 


^1 


h 


04 


TFrr,    FISHKIIIKH    TUKATY. 


that  tliiMc  is  no  ii««(l  to  iiiiicnd  thci  tnsity  so  iia  to  swjiuc  thoiii  coiiimci'- 
cijil  iM;,'lits;  and  tliat  tliesf  slioiihl  he  s»'(!iir<'(l,  and  wonid  be,  tliroii<'|| 
our  h'jufi.slativL"  powers  of  retaliation  upon  tlie  coniiueree  of  the  lliitish 
possessions. 

If  we  infuse  into  that  treaty  tlie  suhstan(MM)f  this  di'inand,  it  tinist 
be  done  by  an  affreenicnt,  in  tlie  nafnreof  jin  aniendinent,  that  funiislics 
some  reeiprocal  eoiuu'ssicui  to  the  people  of  the  IJritish  po^^ses.siotis 
coneerned  in  tin'  lisherics;  otherwise  we  will  fail  to  yain  their  constMit 
to  it. 

If  we  stand  upon  that  treaty  without  aiuendinent,  as  a  flshiny  treaty, 
insistiufi'  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  eoininerciial  privile;;e8  of  our 
lishinj;  vessels,  and  that  it  leaves  us  free  to  demand  for  them  the  sainc 
comnieriiial  privileH;es  that  we  aceord  to  Canadian  llsiiennen,  we  plaoo 
this  deman<l  alone  upon  tlie  }jci''»nnd  of  intei-national  eomity,  which  is  in 
no  sense  a  substantial  ri};ht,  and  is  outside  of  all  treaty  a<»reeinetits. 

We  woidd  then  have  the  treaty  prohibition  aiuainstour  fishing  vessels 
euterin<if  Canadian  bays  and  harl)ors  for  "ary  other  purpose  wliatever" 
than  to  liuy  woo«l,  obtain  water,  nuike  repairs,  and  tind  shelter;  wliiJe 
their  comniereial  privileges  wouhl  entitle  them  U)  enter  the  ports  of 
these  bays  and  harb(»rs  for  any  lawful  cominereial  purpose;  and  tliis 
would  result  from  our  act  in  giving  them,  uiuler  our  laws,  the  doiiDlo 
character  of  fishermen  and  inerehantmen. 

The  British  (rovernment  treats  this  proposition  as  a  mere  attempt  to 
evade  the  treaty  of  1818,  and,  in  that  view,  they  insist  upon  its  rigid 
enforcement.  They  (piote  the  restrictions  of  the  treaty  of  1818  as  bciiit;' 
obligatory  upon  the  United  States,  and  insist  that  we  can  not  cliaiij^o 
the  character  of  a  vessel  from  a  tisherman  to  a  merchantman  by  givin;,' 
to  such  vessel  any  form  of  license,  enrollment,  registry,  or  sea  papers, 
in  addition  to  such  as  place  it  in  the  class  of  a  tishing  vessel. 

However  illiberal  such  a  contention  may  be,  they  certainly  claim  the  I 
right,  under  the  treaty,  and  outside  of  it  as  well,  to  ranee  I 

of  our  lishing  vessels  to  their  bays  and  harb<"  luuiic  I 

ter  as  tisherinen.     As  vessels  of  commerce,  ijin         G»        niiieiitj 

claims  that  they  enter  the  ports  by  comity  aliiie.  A  lishiug  vessels,! 
they  admit  that  they  enter  the  bays  and  harbors  b  tight,  uiuier  tiiel 
treaty,  but  only  for  the  [lurposes  to  which  the  treaty  of  1818  restricts! 
them.  I 

We  do  not  intend  to  lay  down  what  we  may  believe  to  be  the  lim 
of  jurisdiction  over  adjaceut  seas  that  are  said  to  be  secured  to  the  Gt 


liindor  the  1 
r'tlieGuI 
K'  'ishin 
upon  a 
'"•^t  us  a 
«.  3Ii.s 


It 


THE   FISHKUIKS    TUF.ATY. 


65 


iritish 
C  nuist 

ionsciit 

tiviity, 
s  of  oui 
lU'  saiuc 
V('  \>l;ic« 
ii»',\iis  in 

»('l\tS. 

hatcvcv" 

n",  while 

1  ports  of 

and  this 

It*  (loiii)lo 

[ttoi»\\»t  to 
\\  its  rigid 
as  being 
lot  cluuigo 
Iby  giving 
;a  papeis, 

claim  tlie 
.  ram  e 
liarac 
,  mueut 
lo-  vessels, 
uiu'.er  thii 
Is  restricts 

[the  linii' 
o  the  Gov 


cri\iu<M\ts  owuiny;  tlu?  coasts  by  thu  laws  of  nations,  ('liancollor  Kent, 
Mr.  .Fetrersoii,  Mr.  ^Fadison,  ami  Mr.  Seward,  and  many  other  j;Teiit 
lawyers  ajul  statesmen  of  our  country  have  advocated  theories  on  tliis 
subject  quite  at  variance  with  tlie  ."i-milo  boundary  of  our  right  of  juris- 
diction seaward  from  the  coast.  This  «iuestioii  needs  to  bejiandled  witii 
;,'reat  circumspecition.     This  is  a  very  important  matter. 

A  vast  extent  of  the  coast  of  the  I'acilic,  reachin;;'  to  the  ai(!ti(;  cir- 
('li>,  and  destined  to  become  a  more  important  tlshinj^-j;r()und  than  the 
Atlanti<;  coasts,  must  be  at!e(!ted  by  the  princiiples  of  international  law 
wliich  the  United  States  shall  assert  as  defining  the  limits  seaward 
from  tlie  (!oasts  of  our  exclusive  right  to  t'lah  for  seals  and  sea-otters, 
wliales,  ami  the  many  varieties  of  food- fishes  tliat  swarm  along  the 
coasta  of  JJehring  Sea  and  Straits.  We  might  find,  in  that  quartei', 
II  very  inconvenient  appli(!ation  of  the  doctrine  that,  by  the  law  of 
nations,  the  three-mile  limit  of  th(^  exclusive  right  of  fishery  is  to  follow 
mid  bo  measured  from  the  sinuosities  of  the  coasts  of  the  bays,  creeks. 
,111(1  harbors  that  exceed  six  miles  in  width  at  the  entrance;  and  an 
erinally  inconvenient  application  of  our  claim  for  full  commercial  privi- 
leges in  Canadian  i)orts  for  our  fishermen,  when  applied  to  Dritish 
Columbian  fishermen  in  our  Pacific  ports,  which  are  nearer  to  them 
than  to  our  fisheries  in  Alaska. 

Xo  allusion  is  imide  in  the  treaty  of  18 IS  to  tlu^  laws  of  nations  as 
furnishing  canons  for  its  interpretation  ;  and  we  infer  that  its  meaning 
is  to  be  gathered  alone  from  its  context  and  the  circumstances  that  at- 
tended its  adoption. 

The  undersigned  believe  that  the  interpretation  of  that  treaty,  vvhich 
has  led  to  its  reformation  in  the  treaty  now  before  the  Senate,  is  far  in 
advance  of  anything  that  any  American  di[tlomat  has  oflicially  demanded 
iif  the  Uritish  Government,  and  will  lead  to  a  full  and  amicable  adjust- 
iiiLMit  of  all  troubles  of  the  sort  that  have  heretofore  arisen  ;  and  that  it 
Till  open  the  way  for  a  liberal  and  neighborly  agreement  as  to  such  dif- 
[feicnces  as  may  hereafter  arise,  both  on  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  coasts. 
In  this  interpretation  and  relbrmation  of  our  existing  treaty,  the 
Iriiitod  States  make  no  committals  as  to  the  exclusive  rights  of  iishing 
luiRler  the  laws  of  nations  that  may  atlect  our  interests  in  the  Pacific 
il  the  (hilf  of  Mexico  in  the  future;  nor  do  they  place  the  delimitations 
lie  fishing-groundfe,  or  the  alleged  commercial  rights  of  our  fisher- 
upou  any  principle  of  the  international  law  that  may  be  quoted 
list  us  at  Victoria  (within  a  very  short  distance  of  our  northern 
S.  Mis.  109 5 


f  :v 


^^1i 


m 


«6 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


border),  or  along  the  extensive  seacoast  between  Puyet  Sound  iiiul 
Alaska,  our  great  Pacific  fishery. 

The  undersigned  i)refer  the  certainty  which  this  treaty  has  secuiod 
as  to  our  specific  rights  in  the  fisheries  of  tlie  Atlantic  coasts  of  Xoitli 
America  to  the  uncertainty  of  the  international  law  as  to  all  those 
questions,  which  will  leave  in  bitter  dispute  our  rights  and  liberties 
botli  on  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  coasts,  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks,  and 
in  Behring's  Sea  and  Straits. 

The  undersigned  believe  that  the  treaty  now  under  consideration 
atibrds  a  better  foundation  for  both  our  fishing  and  commercial  risbts 
than  any  that  can  be  stated  as  resting  alone  ui)on  international  law,  or 
upon  comity  secured  by  retaliatory  laws  and  maintained  by  the  lluct- 
uating  interests  of  commerce,  that  are  very  unstable. 

Those  who  assert  that  it  is  not  the  duty,  and  is  scarcely  the  right,  of 
the  President  to  resort  to  negotiations,  in  preference  to  the  retaliation 
provided  for  in  existing  laws,  in  order  to  secure  commercial  rights  to 
fishermen  in  Canadian  ports,  are  not  willing  that  their  privileges  sbiill 
be  enlarged  and  jonverted  into  righU  secured  by  treaty.  They  prefer 
the  chances  of  greater  success  through  legislation  that  will  intimidate 
the  British  Government  or  greatly  embarrass  British  commerce.  Tins 
seems  to  indicate  that  they  rely  for  success  more  upon  British  cui)idit,v 
and  the  fear  that  Government  has  of  the  consequences  of  war,  than 
upon  its  sense  of  justice,  or  its  good  faith  iukeeping  treaty  obligations. 

Whether  or  not  this  may  be  true,  it  is  very  obvious,  as  the  nndev-j 
signed  believe,  that  the  advantages  we  are  supposed  to  enjoy  under  sneli  i 
circumstances  would  be  quite  as  available  for  the  increase  of  our  com- 
mercial privileges  by  retaliatory  laws,  after  this  treaty  is  ratified,  as  tliey 
are  at  present.     Our  good  faith  is  no  more  pledged  in  this  treaty  tlui 
it  is  in  the  treaty  of  1818. 

This  treaty  does  not  bind  us  to  advance  no  claim  hereafter  to  ii 
creased  commercial  privileges  in  favor  of  our  fishermen.     The  spirit  iiij 
which  it  is  framed  is  one  of  conformity,  in  our  treaty  relations,  to  tlic 
l>rogressive  interests  and  necessities  of  the  country,  so  that  a  furtluii 
increase  of  commercial   privileges  would  naturally  result  i'roni  the 
policy  of  both  countries ;  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  of  the  negotiation 
this  treaty,  when  such  increase  should  appear  to  be,  as  it  will  be,  mutiij 
ally  advantageous. 


THE    FISHERIES    TKEATY. 


67 


III. 

AN  IMPORTANT  PRECEDENT  FOR  THIS  TRKATV  IN  THE  ARRANGEMENT 
OFFERED  BY  MR.  SEWARD  IN  1806  TO  THE  BRITISH  GOVERNMENT. 

There  is  a  very  important  precedent  for  the  plan  of  this  treaty,  ami 
for  some  of  its  leading:,'  features,  in  the  protocol  proposed  in  18GG  by  Mr. 
Seward,  then  Secretary  of  State,  through  ISlr.  Adams,  our  minister  to 
Great  Britain.    The  letter  of  Mr.  Seward  and  the  protocol  are  as  follows : 


^fl^.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


No.  1737.] 


Dkpartmkxt  of  Statk, 

WaiiMn<jton,  Jpril  10,  ItiGG. 
Sir  :  I  send  you  a  copy  of  a  very  suj^oestive  letter  from  Mr.  Richanl  D.  Ciitts,  who, 
perhaps  you  are  aware,  was  euijiloyed  as  surveyor  for  markinj^,  ou  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  the  fishery  limils  under  the  reciprocUji  treaty.  Mr.  Ciitts's  long  fa- 
miliarity with  that  suhject  practically  and  theoretically  entitles  his  suggestions  to 
respect. 

It  is  desirable  to  avoid  any  collision  or  misunderstanding  with  Great  Britain  ou 
the  subject  growing  out  of  the  teruiinatiou  of  tlie  reciprocity  treaty.  With  this  view 
I  inclose  a  draught  of  a  protocol,  which  you  may  propose  to  Lord  Clarendon  for  a  tem- 
porary regulation  of  the  matter.  If  he  should  agree  to  it,  it  may  be  signed.  When 
signed  it  is  desirable  that  the  instructions  referred  to  iii  the  concluding  ])aragraph 
should  at  once  be  dispatched  by  the  British  Government. 

As  the  fishing  season  is  at  hand,  the  collisions  which  niiglit  be  appndiended  may 
occur  when  that  season  advances. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

William  H.  Skwaud. 


fe 


Iii,: 


\       ' 


Drauijht  protocol  communicated  by  Mr.  Adams  to  the  Karl  of  Clarendon  in  180(j. 

Whereas  in  the  lirst  article  of  the  convention  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  concluded  and  signed  iu  London  on  the  2lith  October,  181d,  it  was  declared 
that— 

"The  Uiiited  States  hereby  renounce,  forever,  auy  liberty  heretofore  enjoyed  or 
dainied  by  the  inhabitants  thereof  to  take,  dry,  or  cure  fish  on  or  within  3  marine 
miles  of  any  of  the  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  of  His  Britannia  Majesty's  do- 
minions in  America,  not  iucliuljd  within  certain  limits  heretofore  mentioned;" 

And  whereas  ditVereuces  have  arisen  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  above-moutioued 
ivimuciation,  tiie  Government  of  the  United  States  and  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of 
Great  Britain,  being  equally  desirous  of  avoiding  further  misuuderstaudiug,  have 
iisreed  to  appoint,  and  do  hereby  authorize  the  appointment,  of  a  mixed  commission 
tor  the  foUowiug  purposes,  namely; 

(1)  To  agree  upon  aiid  define,  by  a  series  of  lines,  the  limits  which  shall  separate 
tiie  exclusive  from  the  common  right  of  tishery,  on  the  coasts  and  in  the  seas  adjacent, 


M, 


rnl 


C8 


THE    FISHERIES    THE  AT  V 


of  the  Britiili  Xiirth  Aiiiericaii  colonies,  in  conformity  wit'i  tlie  lirst  article  of  tlio 
couventioii  of  1618.  The  Kiiid  lines  to  bo  reifnlarly  nnnilxMcil,  duly  described  and 
also  clearly  marked  on  charts  prepared  in  dnidi(;are  for  the  purpose. 

(2)  To  agree  upon  and  establish  such  rej;ulatious  as  may  be  necessary  and  iirDpir  to 
secure  to  the  fishermen  of  the  United  States  the  privilej^o  of  enteriii;;  bays  a!id  har- 
bors for  the  purpose  of  slielter;  and  of  repairing  damages  therein;  of  pmcliasin" 
\vood,  and  of  obtaining  water;  and  to  agree  upon  and  ('stablish  such  restrictions  as 
nuiy  be  necessary  to  prevent  the'  abuse  of  the  privilege  reserveil  by  said  convention 
to  fish(!rmen  of  the  Uidted  States. 

(:J)  To  agreii  upon  and  i't,'coinni(!nd  the  penalties  to  bo  adjiulged,  and  such  ]iio- 
ceediugs  and  jurisdiction  as  may  be  necessary  tosecui-o  a  speedy  trial  and  judgnu'nr 
with  as  little  expense  as  possilde,  for  the  violation  of  rights  and  the  transgression  of 
the  limits  and  restrictions  which  may  bo  hereby  adopted. 

i'rovided,  however,  that  the  limits,  restrictions,  and  regulations  which  nisy  li(> 
agreed  upon  by  the  said  conunission  shall  not  be  final,  nor  have  any  effect,  until  so 
•  ointly  confirmed  and  declared  by  tiic  United  States  and  Her  Majesty  the  Queoi  of 
Great  Britain,  either  by  treaty  or  by  laws  mutually  acknowledged  and  accepted  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  bv 
Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain. 

Pending  a  dilferent  arrangement  on  the  subject,  the  United  States  Governnu'iir 
engages  to  giv(!  all  juoper  orders  to  officers  in  its  employment ;  and  Her  Britannic 
Majesty's  Government  engages  to  instruct  the  proper  colonial  o»  other  British  officers 
to  abstain  from  hostile  acts  against  British  and  United  States  fishermen  respectively. 

This  protocol  was  offered  by  Mr.  Seward,  as  a  modus  vivendl,  after  tlie 
teriiiiuatioii  of  the  treaty  of  ISol  had  thrown  us  back  upon  that  of  1818, 
as  to  onr  tishery  rights,  lie  ottered  It,  also,  for  acceptance  by  Great 
Britain  as  the  basis  of  a  new  treaty  of  interpretation  and  regulation  of 
those  rights.  ^ 

Mr.  Seward's  recommendation  of  a.  mixed  commission,  (1)  "toagroo 
upon  and  define  by  a  series  of  lities"  the  fishing  limits,  in  conforiiiiry 
with  the  first  article  of  the  convention  of  1S18;  ('J)  "to  agree  upon 
and  establish  such  regnlations  as  may  be  necessary  and  proper  to  secure 
the  fishermen  of  the  United  vStates  the  privilege  of  entering  bays  and 
harbors"  utidcr  the  proviso  to  the  treaty;  and  (3)  "to  agree  nixni  and 
recommend  tlie  penalties  to  be  adjudged,  and  such  i)r(>ceedings  and 
jurisdiction  as  may  be  necessary  to  secure  a  speedy  trial,"  etc,  '-fui' 
violations  of  rights  and  transgressions  of  limifs  und  rcsfrictlons,''\'ti:. 
indicates  an  earnest  i»i»preliensiou  on  his  part  that  no  settlement  conhl  ik 
reached  hy  ordinary  negotiations ,'  that  the  treaty  could  not  be  amicalily 
kept  unless  it  was  aineiuled;  and  that  the  amendments  he  proiniscdj 
would  cure  the  defects  of  the  iiideliiiite  descri[)ti()n  of  the  rights  (tml 
restrictions  and  Jishing  Lmits  that  were  too  generally  stated  in  the  tixMivl 
of  1S18. 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


69 


il  har- 
ons  iiH 

ClltilHl 


He  saw  the  increasing  danger  of  the  situation,  and  came  boklly  for- 
ward to  provide  against  its  results. 

The  cordial  manner  in  wliich  these  tliree  propositions  were  then  re- 
ceived by  the  British  Government,  as  a  basis  of  agreement,  inspired 
the  efforts  of  the  present  administration  to  renew  tlie  negotiation  on 
this  phin  as  tlie  basis  of  a  new  treaty. 


^i.;- 


ilj;  incut, 
ssion  of 

I  miiy  lio 
until  HO 
Queen  of 
'.epted  l>y 
f.  iunl  l>y 

vevnnicnt 

ISritannie 

ish  oflk'ovs 

ipectively. 

after  tlie 

of  1S18, 
by  Great 

atiou  of 

'toap'oe 
onfonuity 
;vee  uitoii 
to  seciu'c 
bays  ami 
upon  Hinl 
iliug-^  Hud 
etc,  '-I'l'i' 
(OH.S,''  et''" 
)it  couhl'i" 
i  amit'H'ily 
|j  propi'>''*^ 
riiihU  'ill'' 
the  tnniiyi 


MEASURES  OF   HOSTILITY.  EITHER  COMMERCIAL  OR  ACTUAL,  ARE  NOT 
PREFERAHLE  TO  TFTE  TREATY  BEFORE  THE  SENATE. 

Tlie  undersigned  have  found  no  opinion  expressed  by  any  of  our 
diplomatists  in  their  ofiieial  correspondence  that  the  proper  interpre- 
tation of  article  I  of  the  treaty  of  1818  could  bo  otherwise  secured 
than  by  a  farther  agreement,  as  to  its  meaning,  between  the  treaty 
powers. 

If  we  demand  a  still  more  favorable  agreement  than  that  presented 
in  this  convention  now  under  consideration,  we  shall  probably  en- 
counter many  more  years  of  controver.sy  and  negotiation  before  a  better 
result  can  be.  reached. 

If,  laying  aside  all  treaty  agreements,  we  attempt  to  coerce  a  better 
understanding  and  less  grievous  practices  than  we  have  already  suf- 
fered through  commercial  retaliation,  we  shall  find  that  the  cost  to  our 
own  people  is  far  greater  than  the  entire  value  of  the  fisheries. 

If  we  resoit  to  war,  or  to  measures  that  may  lead  to  hostilities,  upon 

what  precise  definition  of  our  rights  and  grievances  will  wejnscify  such 

grave  proceedings,  either  to  our  own  people,  or  before  the  nations  of 

the  earth  !    We  believe  that  no  man  can  safely  venture  to  formulate 
such  a  declaration. 

Cnless'we  can  clearly  state  the  causes  that  justify  a  war  for  the  re- 
dress of  grievances,  or  the  clear  definition  of  the  right  we  seek  to 
assert  or  defend,  we  have  no  right  to  subject  the  country  to  the  perils, 
or  even  the  api)rehensions,  of  hostilities. 

It  has  never  been  stated  by  any  administration,  or  dii)lomatist,  or 
by  Congress  that  any  one  case,  or  that  all  the  cases  that  have  grown 
out  of  our  disputes  with  Great  Britian  about  the  treaty  of  1818,  gave 
a  just  ground  for  retaliation,  reprisals,  or  war. 

The  undersigned  think  it  can  not  be  safely  denied  tlmt  in  articles  10, 
12, 13,  and  11  of  this  treaty  we  have  gained  advantages  and  i)rivi- 


1-=^. 


d  n* 


'ft; 


i 

IL.t    I- 


70 


THP]    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


leges  of  a  very  iinportiint  diaracter.  In  tUeui  is  foiiiKl  the  full 
coucessioii  of  ever}-  claim  to  lisliing  rights  we  have  ever  made,  as 
being  within  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  the  treaty  of  1818  that  is  now  of 
any  practical  value;  and  the  methods  provided  for  their  admini.stni- 
tion  are  quite  as  satisfactory  as  auj'  we  have  ever  claimed  under  our  in- 
teri>retation  of  that  treat}'.  For  convenience  of  reference  we  insert 
those  articles  in  this  paper,  as  follows: 

Articlk  X. 

Uuited  States  li.shinj;  vessels  entering  the  1)a.v.s  or  liarlior.s  referreil  to  in  Article  I  df 
this  treaty  nhall  conform  to  havhor  regulatious  common  to  them  and  to  finhiiuj  vcsseh  of 
Canada  or  of  Xewfomidfaiid. 

Then  >'f<'<i  >">t  report,  enter,  or  dear  when  piittinjf  into  sncli  bays  or  harl)or,s  fur  ulu'l- 
ter  or  repairing  damages,  nor  when  patting  into  the  .same,  outside  the  limits  of  eslahlinhed 
ports  of  entry,  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  wood  orofohlainiuy  water;  except  that  any 
such  vessel  remaining  more  than  tioenty-four  hours,  exclusive  of  Sundays  and  legal  hol- 
idays, within  any  such  port,  or  communicating  with  the  shore  therein,  mag  he  required  in 
report,  enter,  or  clear;  and  no  vessel  shall  be  excused  hereby  from  giviug  due  informa- 
tion to  boarding  otHcei's. 

They  shall  not  be  liable  in  any  sueh  bays  or  harbors  for  compulsory  pilotage;  nor. 
when  therein  for  the  purpose  of  shelter,  of  repairing  damages,  of  purchasing  wood, 
or  of  obtaining  water,  sliaU  theg  be  liable  for  harbor  dues,  tonnage  dues,  buoy  dues,  light 
dues,  or  other  similar  dues;  but  this  enumeration  shall  not  permit  other  charges  inconsistent 
with  the  enjoyment  of  the  liberties  reserved  or  secured  by  the  Convention  of  Oct(il)cr 
20,  1S18. 

Al'.TICLK    XI. 

United  States  llshing  vessels  entering  the  ports,  bays,  and  '  arbors  of  tlie  Eastern 
and  Xortheastern  coasts  of  Canada  or  of  the  coasts  of  Newfoundland  under  stress  <if 
weather  or  other  casualty  may  unload,  reload,  tranship,  or  sell,  subject  to. customs  laws 
and  regulations,  all  lish  on  board,  when  such  unloading,  transhipment,  or  sale  is  nadc 
necessary  as  incidental  to  re2)airs,  and  may  replenish  outfits,  prorisions,  and  supplies  dam- 
aged or  lost  by  disaster  ;  and  in  case  of  death  or  sickness  shall  be  allowed  all  needful 
facilities,  including  the  shipping  of  crews. 

Licenses  to  purchase  in  established  ports  of  entry  of  the  aforesaid  coasts  of  CanaiLi 
or  of  Newfoundland, /(>»•  the  h'^meward  royage,  swvh  i>rovisions  and  supplies  as  are  ordi- 
narily sold  to  trading  vessel,  ^hall  be  granted  to  United  States  fishing  resseU  in  such 
ports,  promptly  upon  application  and  without  charge;  and  such  vessels  having  obtained 
licenses  iu  the  manner  aforesaid  .shall  also  be  accorded  upon  all  occasions  such  facil- 
ities for  the  i)urchase  of  casual  or  needful  provisions  and  suppli(>s  as  are  ordinarily 
granted  to  the  trading  vessels;  but  such  provisions  or  supplies  .shall  not  be  obtained 
by  barter,  nor  purchased  for  resale  or  traftic. 

Ahtici.e  XIII. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  shall  make  regulations  provid- 
ing for  the  conspicuous  exhibition,  by  every  United  States  fishing  vessel,  of  its  ot1ici.il 


THE    FISHERIES    TRERTY. 


71 


EiiNtevu 

slri^^  "/ 

DlllS  liiws 

u:  is  nadc 

i)Jks  dam- 

I  needful 

[f  Canada 
are  oi'di- 

|,s  in  suc'li 
(ibtiiiuoil 

iiieb  facil- 

irdinai'ily 
olitainctl 


lis  provul- 
jits  official 


lUimber  on  e.acli  bow  ;  and  any  sncli  vessel,  refinirod  l)y  liiw  to  have  an  ofiicial  nnni- 
ber,  and  failing  to  comply  with  sucli  regulations,  shall  not  be  entitled  to  the  liceusea 
provided  for  in  this  treaty. 

Such  regulations  shall  be  coiiininnicated  to  Her  Majesty's  rJovernnient  previonuly 
to  their  taking  effect. 

AiMicr.K  XIV. 

Tlio  ;ienaItios  for  nnlawfalhi  Jhh'inn  in  tiie  waters,  bays,  creeks,  and  harbors, 
referred  to  in  xVrtiele  I  of  this  treaty,  may  extend  to  forfeiture  of  the  boat  or  vessel, 
and  appurtenances,  and  also  of  the  supplies  and  cargo  aboard  when  the  olfenso  was 
committed  ;  and  for  preparing  in  such  waters  to  util-iwfuJIjjfwh  therein,  i)enaUies  shall 
lie  iixed  by  the  court,  not  to  exceed  tiiose  f(n'  unlawfully  fishing;  and  for  aci/  other 

lolation  of  the  laim  of  (Ircat  Britain,  Canada,    ov    Newfoundland  relating  to  the 
right  of  tishery  in  such  waters,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors,   penalties  shall  be  Iixed  by 
the  court,  not  exceeding  in  all  three  doVars  for  ccery  ton  of  the  hoat  or  vesxel  concerned. 
The  boat  or  vessel  may  be  holden  for  such  i)enalties  ami  forfeitures. 
Tiie  jirocecdings  shall  be  summary  and  as  inex|)ensive   as  practicai)le.     The  trial 

except  on  appeal)  shall  be  at  the  place  of  detention,  unless  the  Judge  shall,  on  re- 
I  .|iiest  of  the  defense,  order  it  to  ho.  held  at  some  other  place  adjndged  hy  him  more  con- 

■riient.     Security  for  costs  shall  not  be  reiiuired  of  the  defense,  except  when  bail  is 

Ml'ered.     Reasonable  bail  shall  be  accepted.     There  shall  be  proper  appeals  nrni/aft/e 
I  fii  the  defense  only  ;  and  the  evidence  at  the  triat  may  he  nued  on  appeal. 
Judgments  of  forfeiture  shall  be  reviewed  by  the  Governor-General  of  Canada  in 

fi-   2i!,  or  the  governor  in  council  of  Newfoundland,  before  the  same  are  executed. 

We  accord  (in  Article  12)  to  the  lisbiiig  vessels  of  Ciiuada  iuul  New- 

ItoinuUaiul  tiie  same  pricilegas  on   the  Atlaiiti(i  coasts  of  the  United 

[States  that  are  secured  to  our  fishiuy'  vessels  by  this  treaty,  without 

uhnitting"  them   to   fish  within  3  miles   of   the  coasts   of  the   bays, 

liarbors,  or  creeks  along-  that  sea-coast. 

This  treaty  secures  to  our  fishermen  the  free  navigation  of  the  Strait 
lot' Can  so. 

Article  15  secures  to  us  the  option  to  ac([uire  very  imi)ortant  com- 
|i«i'i'oial  privileges  to  our  lisherinen  whenever  Congress  shall  conclude 
iliat  they  are  worth  the  money  that  we  may  otherwise  collect  in  duties 
"11  tish. 

Congress  may  never  make  this  concession  ;  but  the  power  to  acquire 

lliese  privileges,  as  pernninent  treaty  rights,  may  become  very  valuable 

10  118  when  the  diminishing  products  of  the  lisheries  in  the  waters  ad- 

liiceiit  to  the  eastern  coasts  of  the  United  States  and  of  Canada  and 

Newfoundland  increase  in  \alue,  because   they   will   be   required   to 

^upply  the  needs  of  100,00l>,00()  of  peoi)le  in  the  United  States  and 

'UlOOjOOO  of  peoi)le  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 


!i  ;■ 


II 


11 


i 


-  m 


f. , 


L'P  ' 


SI' 


ml 
I 


I'  'I' 


'\ 


I 


I 


72 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


This  article  is  su;>gested  by  a  wise  forecast  of  the  future  uece.ssitios 
of  our  lishernien,  as  well  as  those  of  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
when  our  population  is  greatly  increased,  and  the  supply  of  food  is  to 
be  distributed  to  such  a  vast  multitude  of  people  that  the  allowance. 
per  capita,  will  be,  accordingly,  diminished. 

The  treaty  now  before  the  Senate  is  one  of  reciprocal  concessions. 

The  unconditional  concessions  to  the  fishermen  are  not  strictly  com- 
mercial, but  they  give  them  great  assistance  in  their  business  and  in 
the  means  of  relieving  any  distress  which  may  befall  them. 

Can  we  ever  hope  to  engraft  on  the  treaty  of  1818  any  new  agree- 
ment for  commercial  privileges  to  our  fishermen  without  giving  an 
equivalent  in  some  liberty  or  privilege  that  Great  Britain  will  claim  for 
her  fishermen  '. 

This  question  is  answered  by  the  fact  that  we  renounced  in  1818  the 
best  part  of  the  fisheries  that  were  of  the  fruits  of  the  war  for  indei)eii(l- 
euce  in  order  to  make  the  residue  a  permanent  right;  and  in  18.")  1  and 
1871  we  agreed  to  pay  heavily  for  a  temporary  suspension  of  the  restric- 
tions and  limitations  of  the  treaty  of  1818. 

We  have  made  four  fisheries  treaties  with  Great  Britain,  in  1783, 1818. 
1854,  and  1871,  and  in  none  of  them  has  any  commercial  privilege  been 
secured  to  our  fishermen.  ;Xo  serious  effort  has  been  made  to  seciuo 
such  privileges  prior  to  the  negotiation  now  before  the  Senate.  All 
that  we  have  heretofore  secured  to  our  fishermen  has  been  the  iirivilege 
of  inshore  fishing,  of  curing  and  drying  fish  on  certain  parts  of  the 
British  coasts,  more  or  less  restricted  and  changed  in  each  successive  I 
treaty,  and  the  right  to  buy  wood,  obtain  water,  make  repairs,  and  lindj 
shelter. 

Now,  we  find,  according  to  the  testimony  of  everybody  concerned,  and! 
the  thoroughly  considered  report  of  our  Committeeon  Foreign  llelationsj 
made  after  a  searching  investigation  conducted  upon  our  coasts,  audi 
upon  the  testimony  of  experts  laid  before  the  Senate,  that  the  inshoiol 
fisheries,  for  which  we  have  i)aid  and  suffered  so  much,  are  of  no  valiiej 
to  us,  and  that  the  privilege  of  purchasing  bait  from  the  Canadians  is| 
an  injury  to  our  fishing  interests  rather  than  a  benefit. 

These  declarations,  which  were  true,  show  that  many  of  the  conteu] 
tions  and  strifes  we  have  had  over  this  subject,  for  seventy  years,  liavd 
been  about  a  ck'm  of  rights  and  privileges  that  are  no  longer  of  um| 
advantage  to  us. 

They  prove  that  we  need  only  such  advantages,  or  privileges,  for  (h 


TJiis 

teres ts, 

cousidei 

reject  tli 

The  rij 

find  the 

of  1830'^ 

The  pr 

to  enter  ( 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


73 


sities 
tatL's, 
L  is  to 
ancc. 

ns. 

\-  com- 
and  ill 


agreo- 


ing  ail 
laim  Vuv 

L818  tlio 
tlepeuil- 
US.'ji  and 
e  restrie- 


33,1816. 
oge  been 


ate.    All 
pi-ivilcgc 
IS  of  tlu' 
uccessivt'  I 
.  aiul  liutl ! 


riK' 


d,  ami 
lelations. 
)asts,  aiull 
le  insliovc 
If  no  valuii 
radians  isj 

he  conteuj 
jeavs,  lii^va 
lo-er  of  ail}! 

ID  ■ 

les,  for  m 


tishernicn  on  the  Canadian  coasts  as  are  enjoyed  by  our  merchant  ves- 
sels, and  that  these  are  not  very  important  to  them. 

Purse-seining  has  revoUitioni/ed  tlio  mackerel  fishery  abuost  entirely, 
iind  has  hirgely  attccted  the  herring  fishery,  and  lias  given  to  our  fisher- 
men great  advantages  in  "the  catch."  But  Canadian  capital  and 
energywill  not  long'  permit  us  to  do  all  the  purse  or  deep-water  seinifig. 

The  freezing'  of  fish  on  shipboanl,  so  as  to  get  them  fresh  to  our 
markets,  is  of  recent  date,  but  is  a  very  important  change  in  the  fish- 
ing business.  In  this  the  Canadians  have  no  greater  advantages  than 
our  fishermen. 

These  two  improvements  in  the  fishing'  business,  with  tiie  added 
power  of  steam,  which  has  been  api)lied  to  sea  navigation  since  1818, 
have  i)roduced  the  revolution  in  these  pursuits  wliich  renders  it  more 
convenient  to  have  commercial  rights  for  some  of  our  fishing  vessels, 
but  has  removed  the  necessity  to  have  fishing  privileges  within  three 
miles  of  any  of  the  coasts  or  in  the  bays  of  the  British  ])ossessions 
that  are  not  classed  as  great  arms  of  the  sea. 

The  history  of  the  controversies  that  have  found  a  final  solution  in 
the  treaty  now  before  the  Senate,  and  tlie  explanation  of  the  bearing 
of  the  treaty  upon  those  (luestions,  are  so  clearly  and  ably  stated  by 
Hon.  W.  L.  Putnam,  in  a  letter  dated  April  10,  1S8S,  that  we  apjiend 
it  to  this  report  (Appendix  E). 

Mr.  Putnam  being  one  of  our  pleni[)Otentiarie:s  who  negotiated  this 
treaty,  his  review  of  the  diplomatic  and  legislative  history  is  an  impor- 
tant exposition  of  the  merits  of  this  subject. 

T. 

THIS    TREATY    COMPARED    WITH    THE    COM.MEKCIAL    ARRANGEMENT 
STYLED  "THE  RECIPROCITY  OF  1,^30.'' 

This  treaty  proposes  liberal  reciprocity  to  us,  confined  to  fishing  in- 
terests, and  gives  ns  all  the  time  we  may  choose  to  claiiu  in  which  to 
consider  our  best  interests  and  determine  whether  we  will  accept  or 
reject  the  overture. 

The  right  of  choosing  between  this  proffered  commercial  reciprocity 
and  the  privileges  accorded  to  us  under  what  is  termed  "  the  recii)rocity 
of  1830"  is  a  decided  advantage  in  favor  of  our  fishermen. 

The  products  of  our  fisheries  in  Canadian  waters  are  not  permitteil 
to  enter  Canadian  ports  on  any  ships  of  the  United  States  by  the  Brit- 


\i 
\1 


m 
III 

:.'.   .'if'  L 


!''  »l 


•it  I. 


74 


THE    KISHERIKS    TKKATY. 


isli  proclamation  of  Xoveinber  5,  IS'M).  That  i)roclanuitiou  declares 
"that  the  ships  of  and  belon^'iiij?  to  the  said  United  States  of  America 
may  import  from  the  United  States  aforesaid  into  the  liritisli  posses- 
sions abroad  goods  the  proihice  of  those  States,  and  may  export  j^oods 
from  tlio  British  ])ossessions  abroad  to  be  carried  to  any  foreign  conn- 
try  "whatever." 

This  cannot  a[>ply  to  fishery  i)rodacts  taken  or  purchased  in  the 
Canadian  waters  or  ports,  and  was  not  intended  in  any  manner  to 
add  to  the  four  purposes  for  whidi  our  fishermen  may  enter  Canadian 
ports  under  the  treaty  of  1818,  as  we  understand  that  prochunation,  or 
to  repeal  that  treaty. 

This  proclamation  was  a  month  later  tlian  that  made  by  President 
Jackson,  and  was  the  British  response  to  our  proclamation,  under  which 
"British  vessels  and  their  cari'oes  are  admitted  to  an  entry  into  the 
ports  of  the  United  States  from  the  islands,  provinces,  and  colonies  of 
Great  Britain,  on  or  near  the  JS^orth  American  continent  and  north  or 
east  of  the  United  States."  The  full  text  of  these  proclamations  is 
hereto  appended  as  Appendices  A  and  B. 

These  proclamations  set  forth  the  entire  concurrent  action  of  the  two 
Governments  (which  is  called  the  reciprocity  of  ISoO),  There  iiaviug 
been  no  change  in  the  situation  since  that  time,  that  is  "  the  reciprocity" 
which  still  exists,  as  matter  of  law. 

The  broad  liberality  of  our  concession  is  in  very  striking  contrast 
with  that  of  Great  Britain;  but  we  have  lived  under  this  inequality  of 
rights  for  more  than  fifty  years,  without  a  serious  protest  until  within 
three  years,  and  the  complaints  we  have  made  arose  from  the  Britisli 
construction  of  our  fishing  rights  and  not  of  our  commercial  rights  • 
under  that  reciprocity. 

Our  fishing  vessels  are  equally  barred  (under  tljc  British  contention) 
bj'  the  treaty  of  1818,  and  by  the  Britisli  proclamation  of  November  5, 
1830,  from  entering  their  ports  witli  cargoes  of  fish  taken  in  Canadian 
waters,  without  reference  to  the  rights  to  touch  and  trade  or  to  any 
other  commercial  character,  that  we  may  give  them  under  our  laws. 
To  gain  these  rights  for  our  fishermen,  we  have  a  choice  of  grave  al- 
ternatives. 

But  the  cost  of  the  naval  and  military  prepa^'ation  that  would  be 
necessary  to  give  confidence  to  our  own  people,  in  supi^orting  any  ex- 
treme demand  or  stringent  measures  connected  with  this  subject,  would 
be  greater  than  the  whole  value  of  these  fisheries  for  the  next  half 
century. 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


75 


l)Ul<l  i>t^ 

|i»ny  ox- 
would 


VI. 


THE  PRESIDENT  HAS  ONLY  PERFORMED  A  PLAIN  DITY,  IN  THE  INTER- 
ESTS OF  ALL  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  AND  TO  THE  SEN- 
ATE IS  LEFT  THE  RESPONSIP.ILITY. 

The  undersigned  do  not  And  it  necessary  to  answer  in  detail  the 
various  objections  urged  in  committee  by  the  Senators  opposed  to  the 
ratification  of  tliis  treaty,  l)ecause  no  amendment  was  offered  to  indi- 
cate that  the  treaty  coukl  be  so  improved  as  to  gain  tlie  support  of  any 
member  of  tlie  majority  of  the  committee. 

The  undersigned  understand  that  the  dissent  from  this  negotiation  is 
directed  to  it  as  an  entirety.  Tliis  dissent  is  based,  in  part,  upon  the 
opinion  of  some  members  of  the  majority  that  the  President  shouhl  not 
liave  entered  upon  any  negotiation,  in  view  of  the  resolution  adopted 
by  the  Senate  on  the  3d  day  of  February,  1880,  and  the  oi)inion  of  Con- 
gress as  it  was  expressed  in  the  non-intereourse  act  approved  3Iarch  3, 
1887.    That  resolution  is  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  in  tlu>.  opinion  of  the  Soniito  \\w  apitoiiitnient  of  a  coiiiiiiissioii,  in 
which  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  sliall  l)e  represented, 
ciiarj^ed  with  the  consideration  and  si^fctleMii-nt  of  the  fishiiig  ri;[j;ht3  of  tlie  two  Gov- 
t'lnments  on  the  coasts  of  the  United  States  and  l>ritish  Nortli  America,  onght  not  to 
he  provided  for  by  CongToss. 

This  resolution  related,  as  we  umlerstand  it,  solely  to  the  <iuestiou 
whether  such  negotiation  should  be  conducted  by  commissioners,  under 
;m  act  of  Congress,  or  by  the  President,  under  his  constitutional  power 
to  make  treaties. 

The  Senate  adhered  to  its  constitutional  power  to  ratify  or  reject  a 
treaty,  and  insistel  that  the  President  shoiUd  make  any  negotiation  he 
might  see  fit  to  conduct  in  such  form  and  under  such  conditions  that  the 
I  power  of  the  Senate  over  such  subjects  should  not  bo  interfered  with. 

The  retaliatory  act  of  Congress  above  mentioned  was  not  intended, 
I  and  could  not  have  been  intended,  to  instruct  the  President  as  to  the  will 
of  the  legislature  in  a  matter  over  which  Congress  has  no  authority — 
|tbe  negotiation,  ratification,  or  promulgation  of  a  treaty. 

Congress  has  the  right  to  declare  that  in  some  or  all  of  the  bun- 
|ili'edsof  cases  that  have  occurred  in  which  the  treaty  of  1818  has  been  in 
I'liiestion,  it  has  been  violated,  and  that  retaliation,  reprisals,  or  war 
Isliall  follow  such  abuses  until  they  are  compensated,  and  they  shall 
Iceiise.    Such  a  declaration  as  to  the  violation  of  the  treaty  was  dis- 


rm 

;  % 


''.  w 


nr.B 

I 


ii 


76 


THE  ri8iiK];ii:s  tkeaty, 


tinotly  made  in  tin;  report  of  tlio  Senate  (Jominittee  on  Foreifjn  I'da- 
tions,  oil  tlie  lOtliofJamiary,  18S7.  Wo  (juote  from  tliiit  report,  as  fol- 
lows : 

It  will  lie  soi'ii,  from  tlu*  corre.spoiuleiK'i!  iiiiil  paiiiTiH  mibiiiittod  li.v  tlin  I'rcMidcnt, 
in  liis  iiicssagL.  on  tlio  Hiiliject,  of  tlio  ytli  of  December  last  (Ex.  Due.  Xo.  ll*.  roity- 
iiiuth  Coiij^rcss,  hccoikI  si'ssioii),  iiiid  from  tho  testimony  taken  by  tb(!  comniittti', 
that  Konio  of  llioso  instances  of  soizuro  or  dotontion,  or  of  drivin;;  vckscIs  away  liy 
threats,  etc.,  weics  in  citjar  violation  of  the  treiity  of  IHH,  and  that  others  were  on 
such  slender  and  technical  gionndii,  either  iis  applied  to  lishing  rii^lits  or  eoninuMN ml 
rights,  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  believe  that  they  were  made  with  tin;  lar;;e  and 
just  objeet  of  protecting  siibstantial  ri,i;ht.s  against  real  and  snbstantial  invasion,  but 
jnnst  have  been  made  either  nniler  the  stimnlns  of  tin;  cupidity  of  the  seizing  ofllcer, 
sharptuied  and  made  safe  by  the  extraordinary  legislation  to  which  the  committee  has 
referred,  wlmreby  the  seizing  oHieer,  no  matter  how  unjust  or  illegal  his  procedure 
may  have  been,  is  made  practically  secure  from  the  necessity  of  making  substantial 
redress  to  the  Jtarty  Avronged,  or  of  punishment,  or  else  they  must  have  arisen  from  ;i 
8ystenuiti(;  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  ])ominion  authorities  to  vex  and  harass 
American  tishing  and  other  vessels  so  as  to  jiroduce  s  ich  a  state  of  cmbarrassmunr 
and  inconvenience  with  respect  to  intercourse  with  the  provinces  as  to  coerce  tlie 
United  States  into  arrangements  of  general  reciprocity  with  the  Dominion. 

l)Ut  Coii^res.s  did  not  follow  up  this  bold  declaration  of  that  commit- 
tee with  a  demand  for  redress,  or  with  any  provision  of  law  that  was 
based  upon  the  fact  that  the  treaty  of  1818  had  been  violated  by  Great 
Britain.  It  was  our  connuercial  rights  that  Congress  undertook  to  pro- 
tect. 

The  committee  did  not  ask  the  Senate  to  pass  a  bill  that  would  com- 
mit the  country,  if  it  should  become  a  law,  to  a  state  of  actual  hostility 
towards  Great  Britain,  or  even  to  a  firm  declaration  that  Great  Britain 
had  violated  tlie  treaty  of  1818  in  the  manner  and  with  the  motives 
stated  in  the  foregoing  extract  from  their  report. 

Congress  w^as  either  satisfied  that  no  occasion  had  arisen  which  woukl 
justify  decisive  measures,  such  as  retaliation,  reprisals,  or  war,  in  reseat- 
ment  for  any  actual  violation  of  the  treaty,  or  else  it  sought  to  evade 
Its  just  responsibility  to  the  country  by  increasing  the  powers  of  the 
President  to  retaliate  on  British  commerce,  and  by  throwing  upon  hiui 
the  responsibility  of  deciding  whether  the  "recent"  conduct  of  that 
Government  and  of  the  provinces  demanded  of  the  United  States  tliatj 
any  retaliation  should  be  proclaimed  and  enforced. 

The  lIou.';w'of  liepresentatives  demanded  broader  powers  for  tlie  I 
President  than  the  Senate  would  agree  to,  but  both  houses  hastened  to  | 
devolve  upon  him  the  decision  of  the  whole  question  of  our  treaty  re- 


eliv- 
Vol- 

i\«'i;t, 
'uity- 

itt<M', 

iiy  liy 
JVC  nil 
lerciiil 
:;(•  and 
)1>,  loit 
ollict'v, 
;ti't!lKi> 
DceiUnc 
stanlial 
1  tVoni  ;i 
I  liiua'-> 
•assuit'Hi 
icvci'  t'.u; 

lominit- 
luit  was 
y  Great 
topvo- 

^l\d  com- 

Hostility 
Britain 
motives 

jh  would 
In  reseut- 
Ito  evade 
Irs  of  tbe 
Ivpou  liiu> 
It  of  that 
lates  tUat 

Is  for  tbe  I 

Lstenedtol 
treaty  re- 


THE    FISIIKRIKS    TKKATY.  <7 

liitions  with  Groat   Uritaiii,  and  };sive  him  tlio  disci'etioii  to  employ  all 
necessary  means  to  put  his  decision  in  force. 

This  is  the  law  that  Con^^a'css  enacted  to  meet  tlnit  ajj^j,'ravated  state  . 
of  alVairs,  as  described  in  the  lejiort  of  tlie  Senate  committee  : 

AX  AV/V  til  iiutlii)ii/e  tlio  rnsiilnit  of  the  I'liitucl  Htiitci  to  picitcol  ami  (Iffi'iiil  llio  rights  of  AtiiiTi- 
can  ll.-iliiiiijv(mscl.i,  Amci'icim  llshcrincii,  Aiiioiicaii  Iraiiinn  and  ullici'  ves^tols,  In  cmtiiii  ciisc.-t,  anil 
fur  other  iiiirii'im'.s. 

lUitciKiclcdbi/  tlie  Senate  and  Ilimse  of  lleiivexentativeH  uj'jhe  United  Slnlia  of  America 
in  Con{iven,i  <iHnci)ililed,  TImt  wlicucvcr  tlif  I'rcsidt'tit  <it'  tlu^  riiitftl  States  fsliall  lio  sat- 
islicd  tliat  AiiH'rican  HHliiiig  vcsMids  or  Amt'iicaii  li.slicriiu'ii,  visiting;  or  Ik  in;;-  in  tlio 
waters  or  at  any  jiortH  or  (dacesofthe  iSiitish  dominionH  of  Norlli  America,  are  or  then 
lately  have  lieen  denied  or  aliridi^ed  in  the  en.joynuMit  <d"  any  rijLjhts  siu'ured  to  them 
liy  treaty  or  law,  or  are  or  then  lately  have  [becni]  nnjn.stly  vexed  or  harassed  in  tho 
eiijoyment  ol'.siudi  iif;lits,  or  suhjt'eted  to  inireasonal)le  restrictions,  regulations,  or 
n(|iiircnieiits  in  respect  of  such  ri;5lits ;  or  otherwise  unjustly  vexed  oi'  liarassi'd  in 
said  waters,  ]iorts,  or  jilaces;  or  wlusnover  the  PresidiMit  of  tlie  United  States  shall  ho 
satislied  tliat  any  such  lishiujj  vessels  or  fishermen,  having;  a  permit  under  the  laws 
(if  the  United  .States  to  touch  and  trade  at  any  port  or  ports,  [dace  or  places,  in  the 
ISritish  dominions  of  North  America,  are  or  then  lately  have  heen  denied  the  privilejj;e 
of  enterinj;  siitdi  port  or  ports,  phice  or  jdaees  in  the  same  niauner  and  under  tht< 
isamo  rejjtilations  as  may  exist  therein  ai»plieiihle  to  tratlinij  vessels  of  tlitj  most  fa- 
vored nation,  or  shall  Ix?  unjustly  vexed  or  liarassed  in  respect  thereof,  or  otherwise 
be  unjustly  vexed  or  harassed  therein,  or  shall  bt;  prevented  from  purchasiiij^  sntdi 
supplies  as  may  there  be  lawfully  sold  to  trading  vessels  of  the  most  favored  nation; 
kv  whenever  the  President  of  the,  Unitiid  States  shall  be  satislied  that  any  otiier  ves- 
sels of  the  United  States,  their  masters  or  crews,  so  arrivini;-  at  or  beinj;-  in  such 
liiitish  waters  or  ports  or  places  of  the  IJiitish  dominions  of  North  America,  are  or 
iheii  lately  have  been  denied  any  of  the  privile,<;('s  therein  accorded  to  the  vessels, 
tlu'ir  masters  or  orews,  of  the  most  favored  naticui,  or  unjustly  vexed  or  harassed  in 
r('s]iect  of  the  same,  or  unjustly  vexed  or  harassed  therein  by  the  authorities  thereof, 
tliLii,  and  in  either  or  all  of  such  cases,  it  shall  be  lawful,  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  discretion,  by  proclamation  to  that  effect, 
to  deny  vessels,  their  masters  and  crews,  of  tlu!  JJiitish  dominions  of  North  America, 
aiiv  entrance  into  the  waters,  ports,  or  jilaces  of.  or  within  the  United  States  (witli 
.such  exceptii-ns  in  regard  to  vessels  in  distress,  stress  of  weather,  or  iieedinjj  supplies 
as  to  the  riesident  shall  seem  proper),  whether  such  vessels  shall  have  come  directly 
iVoiii  said  (lominions  on  siieh  destined  voyaj;e  or  by  way  of  some  port  or  placi;  in  such 
ilestiueil  voyajre  elsewhere;  and  also,  to  diMiy  entry  into  any  jiort  or  place  of  the 
United  States  of  fresh  !ish  or  salt  tish  or  any  other  product  of  said  dominions,  or 
(illier  i:;oods  coining  from  said  domiuions  to  the  United  States.     The  President  may, 
ill  his  discretion,  apply  such  proclamatioa  to  any  part  or  to  all  of  the  foregoing-named 
subjects,  and  may  revoke,  qualify,  limit,  and  renew  such  proclamation  from  time  to 
time  as  ho  may  deem  necessary  to  the  full  anO  just  execution  of  tlu^  purposes  of  this 
act.     Every  violation  of  any  .-,;;ch  proclamation,   or  any  part  thereof,  is  hereby  de- 
clared illegal,  and  all  vessels  and  goods  so  coming  or  being  within  the  waters,  ports. 


|:ii 


! 


*iht 


■i! 


!  '11 


78 


THE    riSHKKIKS    TREATY. 


or  i)liU'c.s  of  the  I'liittMl  States  contniry  to  hucIi  iiroclaiiiutioii  hIiiiII  I»i)  forlVitoil  to  t  ln« 
United  Stiife.s;  iiml  .such  (orl'eitiire  (sli.ill  bo  oiiforced  uiul  proeeiMloil  upon  iti  tlie  nn\nf 
inanner  aud  with  th«  saino  oft'oct  tin  in  the  cii«i!  of  vesselH  or  yo'Jtli  whoHo  importa- 
tion or  eoniin;,'  to  or  boin^  in  tlio  waters  or  ports  of  tlio  Unitod  States  contrary  to  law 
may  now  be  enforced  and  proceeded  upon.  Every  jierHon  who  Hhnll  violate  any  of  i  lie 
]tro\  isioiiH  of  tills  a(!t,  or  Hueh  itidclaruation  of  the  Pri!s'<h>ut  niadu  in  pursnaiHc 
hereof,  sliall  be  dcH'ined  K"'Hy  "'  "-  nii.sdenieanor,  and,  on  conviction  thereof, shall  li,. 
punished  by  a  line  not  exeeedinj;  one  thousand  dollars,  or  by  iinprisonineiit  for  a  term 
not  exceedinj?  two  years,  r>r  by  lioth  said  punishments,  in  the  discretion  of  the  coni!. 
Ajtproved,  Mardi:},  1887. 

This  Imv  relates  to  past  offenses  as  well  as  to  those  that  may  liereat'ier 
occur.  As  to  i)ast  offenses,  Con;^ress  abdicated  its  authority  to  dt^clare 
that  they  constituted  just  i-roimds  for  retaliation,  and  left  that  matter 
solely'  to  the  discretion  of  the  President  or  else  Congress  intended 
that  the  I'resident  should  have  these  powers  to  meet  a  case  of  emer- 
gency, and  should  also  employ  his  constitutional  power  of  making 
treaties  (which  Congress  could  not  control)  as  a  part  of  "his  discre- 
tion" in  providing  a  way  through  which  the  evils  comjdained  of  should 
be  remedied. 

The  undersigned  can  not  implite  to  Congress  that  its  i)urpose,  in  de- 
volving upon  the  Presid(Mit  these  broad  discretionary  powers  and  con- 
tlitional  duties,  was  to  forbid,  or  to  euibarrass,  the  free  exercise  by  him 
of  his  constitutional  power  to  make  treaties,  with  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  or  that  these  extraordinary-  powers  were  given  him 
to  enable  Congress  to  escape  its  just  responsibility  for  measures  tli;it 
were  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  honor  of  the  country  or  tlic 
interests  of  the  i«!ople. 

If  the  President  had  resorted  to  retaliatory  measures  against  Cana. 
diau  commerce,  under  this  fict  of  March  3,  1887,  without  having  at- 
tempted any  negotiation  with  Great  Jhitain,  the  open  waj'  that  was  in- 
dicated by  Mr.  Seward's  proctocol  in  ISG'),  to  which  wo  have  referred, 
and  the  favorable  impression  it  made  on  the  British  Government,  would 
have  been  pointed  out  by  an  indignant  people  as  an  .abandoned  oppor- 
tunity for  au  amicable  agreement  with  Great  JJritaiu,  and  he  would 
have  been  amenable  to  just  censure. 

Put,  aside  from  this,  his  duty  to  humanity,  as  well  as  to  his  couiitiy. 
forbade  him  from  exposing  the  interests  and  prosperity  of  0.'5,O0i),OU0  of 
people  to  danger,  by  hasty  or  extreme  measures  of  retaliation,  while  it  i 
was  possible  to  reach  a  just  settlement  of  our  disputes  with  Great 
Britain  over  matters  that  concern  only  a  few  thousand  people,  who 


Tin:    FI.SIIIOUIKS   TKKATY. 


79 


tlio 
nine 
utii- 
I  law 

imici' 
ill  1m. 
I  term 
cimi!' 

r.il'lei' 
>c\'avi' 
iv.iltcr 

emev- 
ivaking 
iliscre- 
sUoulil 

i>,  in  tie- 
,ml  cou- 
;  by  liini 
uiil  cou- 

veu  hiiu 
livos  Uiiit 

y  or  the 

1st,  Caua. 
living  ;^t- 
It  was  iii- 
ret'enxHl, 

[it,  NVOllUl 

llie  would 

countiy. 

)0i),000  of 
II,  while  it ! 
litli  Great  I 
lople,  wliol 


would  be  luoro  Ixnietttod  by  such  an  apfrooimeiit  thnii  thi-y  ronld  lie  by 
reliiliatory  laws. 

Tlio  President  has  succeodi'd  in  niakinj?  jjrovision  for  a  st'ttU'incnt  of 
thcsu  lonf>-standin;^  disi)ntes  on  terms  that  arc  Just  anil  leasonablo,  as 
wc  aro  satislitid — a  niucli  better  settlement  tlian  lias  been  even  attem[)ted 
heretofore,  and  one  that  will  increase,  in  the  future,  the  lil)erality  of 
commerce  with  Canada.- 

If  the  Senate  shall  dec  line  to  ratify  this  tn'aty  there  will  remain  no 
doubt  that  it  assumes  all  the  responsibility  for  what  may  hereafter  re- 
sult from  the  proper  employment  by  the  rresidurit  of  the  retaliatory 
l)0wers  that  Congress  has  conferred  upon  him. 

Jf  the  pro[)er  use  of  those  powers  is  considered  by  Great  IJritain  as  a 
viol) lion  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  in  demandinfjf  for  our  fishermen  fjreater 
liberties  and  privileges  than  that  treaty  si^cured  to  them,  and  that  we 
are  enforcinj;'  that  denuind  through  commercial  duress,  the  Senate  will 
also  take  whatever  responsibility  may  belong:  to  that  situation. 

Con;;ress  declined  to  say  in  the  act  of  March  .'J,  1887,  that  the  lights 
of  American  fishermen  had  been  denied  or  abridged,  but  left  it  to  the 
President  to  determine  that  question.  If  this  treaty  is  rejected,  it  is  be- 
yond disi)Ute  that  retaliatio:i  is  the  only  means,  short  t)f  war,  by  which 
we  can  redress  our  wrongs,  if  we  have  sull'ered  any.  The  Senate,  in  re- 
jecting this  treaty,  will  alUrm  that  such  wrongs  exist,  which  Congress* 
did  uot  so  assert,  and,  because  thereof,  will  force  the  President  to  i)ro- 
daim  non-intercourse. 

YII. 

THE  PKOTOCOL  TO  Till-:  TREATY  IS  AN  HONOUAHLE  AXU  FRIEXDLY  OVEU- 
TtJKE  OF  THE  URITLSII  GOVERNMENT,  AND  SHOULD  BE  ALLOWED 
TO  DEVELOP,  BY  ACTUAL  EXPERIENCE,  WHETHER  THIS  TREATY 
WILL  BE  BENEFICIAL  TO  OUR  FISHEIMES  AND  COMMERCE. 

In  view  of  a  possible  disagreement  between  the  Senate  and  Presi- 
dent as  to  the  value  of  this  treaty  to  our  fishermen,  the  undersigned  re- 
spectfully call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  importance  of  postpon- 
ing its  consideration  until  the  next  December  session  of  Congress. 

The  i)rotocol  to  the  treaty,  suggested  and  otl'ered  by  the  British  pleni- 
potentiaries, tenders  to  our  tishermcn  very  liberal  commercial  privileges 
in  Canadian  ports  for  two  years. 

This  overture  is  equivalent,  almost,  to  a  guaranty  that  during  this 
period  the  British  Govornauiut,  in  conjunction  with  the  provincial  gov- 


1  i 
I 


80 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


oriimeiits,  will  prevent  the  recurrence  of  the  interferences  with  onr  tish- 
ernien  that  have  given  them  such  serious  disquietude.  It  will  also  put 
into  ijractice,  substantially,  all  the  provisions  of  the  present  treaty,  ex- 
cept those  relating"  to  the  delimitation  of  fishing  boundaries. 

A  single  fishing  season,  under  such  conditions,  will  demonstrate  that 
this  treaty  is  a  failure,  or  else  that  it  is  of  great  value  to  the  country. 

The  advantage  of  such  experience  is  manifest,  and  we  sliould  not 
rrtshly  trust  to  our  opinions,  which  nnist  be  largely  conjectural,  wlieu 
we  can  fortify  them  or  disprove  their  sotuidness  by  a  short  delay  in 
our  action,  wliich  does  not  commit  us,  in  the  least  degree,  either  for  or 
against  the  treaty. 

The  Jiritish  Government  has  exerted  a  restraining  intluence  duriuf 
the  vvlu)re  period  since  1818  over  the  provincial  governments  as  to  their 
deniaiuls  and  proceedings  under  that  treaty.  That  G^  -ernment  has 
encouraged  liberality  in  the  conduct  of  the  fishermen  ^i  1  in  commer- 
cial interchange  between  the  United  States  and  the  p'  ".'inces  ;  seeing 
;aat  the  i)rosperity  of  tliose  countries  greatly  depended  on  such  a 
policy. 

It  has  not  been  an  easy  task  to  restrain  the  people  of  the  provinces 
to  a  course  of  moderation.  Political  reasons,  not  always  favor- 
able to  the  Crown,  and  the  jealousies  of  rival  interests  in  fishing 
rights  hehl  in  common  by  the  people  of  two  countries,  and  even  the 
lingering  hatreds  engendered  by  our  Ilevclutionary  war,  h  ive  been 
active  in  promoting  discord  in  these  colonies.  Great  Britain  never 
before  had  so  capital  an  interest  in  fostering  the  loyalty  of  the  (Jaiia. 
dians.  The  Suez  Canal  is  scarcely  more  important  to  the  interests  of 
that  Empire  than  the  Canadian  Pacidc  Railway. 

But  other  interests  of  the  most  important  character  insi)ire  the 
British  Government  with  an  earnest  purpose  to  cultivate  the  closest 
friendshi[)  with  the  people  of  Canada. 

It  is  evidently  the  true  policy  of  the  Hritish  Government  to  satisfy 
the  peoi)le  of  these  provinces  that  tlie  treaty  now  before  the  Senat'  will 
be  of  advantage  to  them,  because  of  the  additional  liberty  of  commerci^ 
that  it  extends  to  our  fishermen ;  and  this  was  doubtless  a  strong  induct' 
ment  to  that  Government  to  otter  voluntarily  to  us  tlie  privileges  stated 
in  the  protocol  to  the  treaty. 

^Ve  have  almost  as  great  an  interest  in  afi'ording  to  our  i)eople  the 
opportunity  of  a  practical  test  of  the  atlvautage  of  these  privilegi's 
offered  in  this  protocol. 

In  matters  of  such  moment  we  can  not  justify  a  rejection  of  sucli  :i 


THE    FlSHEinES    TREATY, 


81 


l)rop(jsitioii,  iK)t  roquiriiij;"  our  formal  acceptance  to  make  it  availaltlo, 
on  the  ground  that  we  could  not,  without  dishonor,  permit  such  a  coarse, 
resulting;'  in  such  possible  advantages  to  us,  even  for  one  fishing  season, 
and  then  reject  the  treaty. 

We  have  not  in  any  way  invited  or  suggested  this  offer  of  the  P>ritisli 
CTOvernment,  and  we  are  not  asked  to  accept  it.  It  proposes,  for  a  time, 
to  liberalize  the  commercial  privileges  of  our  fishermen  in  the  provincial 
ports,  for  reasons  satisfactory  to  the  British  Govern.nent. 

If  we  should  hasten  our  action  on  this  treaty  with  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting an  effort  of  that  Government  to  satisfy  Her  ^Majesty's  su  >iects 
lliat  a  liberal  policy  towards  us  is  tlie  best,  or  even  of  convincing  onr 
people  by  experience  that  such  a  policj"  is  also  best  for  us,  we  would 
incur  greater  discredit  by  such  action  than  could  possibly  attend  our 
rejection  of  the  treaty,  after  a  fair  trial  of  the  British  expedient  pre- 
sented in  this  i)rotocol  had  satisfied  our  people  that  the  treaty  should 
not  be  ratified. 


M   i\ 


I 


f 


[)W  the 
[vilvii''^ 


s\ieU  ;i 


VIII. 

THE  HE.ADLAXD  TIIEOPvY,  AS  ArPLICAHLE  TO  THE  HAYS,  IIAKIJ0R8,  AND 
CREEKS  THAT  ARE  CLAIMED  AS  TIK'RlTOIv'IAL  WATERS,  HAS  NOT 
BEEN  AHANDOXED  I'.Y  THE  BRITISH  GOVERXxMENT,  EXCEPT  IN  THIS 
TREATY.  TT  WAS  A  VITAL  QUESTlOX  WHEX  THIS  NE(jlOTIATIOX  WAS 
EXTERED  UPOX. 

It  is  insisted  by  some  that'ireat  Britain  had  auandoned  the  head- 
huid  theory,  and  that  it  was  obsolete  when  this  treaty  was  made. 

The  undersigned  do  not  understand  that  the  British  headland  theory, 
;i.s  applied  to  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  that  had  geographical  names 
iiiul  limits,  and  were  included  by  British  or  provincial  laws  within  the 
I  local  jurisdictions  in  ISIS,  has  been  abandoned  b,v  Great  Britain. 
IDiitsido  of  a  limit  of  3  miles  from  the  headlands  of  such  indentations 
of  the  sea  coast  it  was  abandoned  as  early  as  LS15,  in  the  case  of  the 
American  fishing  vessels  that  were  warned  otf  the  coast  by  the  Biitisli 
|iuan-of  war  Josscnr. 

Our  claims  could  not  be  fairly  predicated,  diplomati<;ally,  on  such  an 
I'liliiiissiou  by  Great  liritaiii  as  to  the  base-line  from  which  the  o-mile 
limit  is  to  be  measured. 

That  being  still  an  open  <piestion,  the  claiais  of  either  side   were  a 

necessary  feature  in  the  negotiation  of  this  treaty. 

If  our  contention  was  indisputahh/  Jitst,  a  pereaiptory  demand  for  its 

[dllowance  was  the  only  course  we  could  adopt.     Such  a  demand,  we 
S.  Mis.  109~G 


!  I 


82 


THE    FLSIIEKIES    TREATY. 


l)elie\'o,  liivs  iievor  beca  roinially  made  by  this  Governiiient.  ( 'uiigrosis 
i;ertaiiily  has  never  al'lirmed  tlie  indisputable  justice  of  our  ehiiiii.  The 
United  States  have  }»referred  to  let  tliis  question,  with  all  the  others  that 
have  arisen  under  the  treaty  of  ISIS,  continue  in  reaidi  of  discussion 
and  negotiation. 

In  that  situation  the  i)resent  administration  found  this  controversy. 

Mr.  Bayard  proposed  to  the  British  Government  that  the  3-inile  lisli 
ing'  limit  should  be  measured,  iu  the  bays  that  were  10  miles  or  less  in 
width,  from  that  point  nearest  the  entrance  where  the  shores  are  Ki 
miles  «listant  from  each  other.  Jle  found  his  support  tor  that  olfcr  in 
the  arrangement  l^etweeii  Great  Britain  and  other  European  nations  [\n- 
lishin.n'  iu  the  bays  and  Imrbors  of  their  respective  coasts  along  the 
Xorth  Atlantic  and  the  northern  seas. 

It  being"  generally  conceded  that  the  limit  of  local  jurisdiction  ex- 
tended 3  miles  iVoin  the  coast  out  into  the  sea,  and  that  this  distance 
was  adopted  because  it  measured  the  range  of  artillery  in  ancient  times, 
it  is  obvious  that  when  the  range  of  artillery  is  exteuded  to  .">  mih's  :r 
is  <lue  to  the  security  of  bays  and  harbors  reaching  far  inland  tliat 
treaty  ai'rangements  fixi'ig  a  new  measurement  should  have  some  V(  i 
erence  to  the  increased  limits  for  the  protection  of  the  ])eople  res'diiiL 
along  snch  shores  corresponding  with  the  improved  range  of  arti!k'i',\ 

This  otter  made  no  allusion  to  any  headlaiul  theory  that  tlu?  Biiii.s 
Government  hiul  ever  asserted:  still  it  was  dii'ectly  opposed  to  as.sci- 
lions  of  that  tii-eory  which  Great  Britain  had  often  made,  and  callci! 
forth  the  following  "observation    i'rom  the  j\Larquis  of  S;!lisbury  n|)(i;i 
the  proffer  made  Ivy  Mr.  Bayard  :" 

A  I'cfcroiu't!  to  the  action  ol'  tlie  Uiiiti'd  States  (lovcrmiiuiil,  and  to  lln-  ai1ir,is-;i(iij 
niatle  Iiy  tlieif  statcsineu  in  rt.'j;arct  [to]  baya  on  the  Ainorica    ,'oasts,  stivnytlioiis  tliis ; 
viow;  and  the  case  of  th«  EiisHsli  wliil)  (Irantje  shows  that  iiie  (^ovcrnineiit  of  tln' 
I'nited  States,  in  17'.)l>,  claimed  IJehiwaro  I5ay  as  l)einj;  within  teiritoiial  watiis. 

Mr.  IJayard  contends  that  tiio  rnlo,  whicli  ho  asks  to  have  srt  up,  was  adniiteil  1>\ 
tlie,  nnii)ire  of  the  coinniission,  ujipointed  under  !  he  con\eMtion  f)f  It-.");!,  in  the  case  ni 
the  United   States  lishing  schooner  Waahln'jUni ;  that  it  was  by  hini  ajudied  tn  ti. 
IJay  of  Fnndy,  and  that  it  is  for  this  reason  applicable  to  other  Canadian  bay>. 

It  is  snbniitted,  however,  that  as  one  of  tlie  headlands  of  the  IJay  of  Enndy  i>  in  ll,' 
t<'rritoiy  of  the  Enited  States,  any  rules  of  international  hiM'  applicalile  to  that  Iwyl 
are  not  lliercfore  eiinally  applicable  to  other  bays  the   headlands  of  wliich  aiv  l>iiili| 
within  1h(!  territory  of  the  same  power. 

This  jirovision  wonlil  itivolve  a  siirreudei'  of  rishini;  rij;lits  whicli  liave  al  wa\,--l"i:i| 
regarded  Jis  the  exclusive  ]M0])erty  of  (Janada,  and  would  make  eon>inon  li>!iii  ;- 
}i;rom;.is  of  the  territ(nial  waters  wliich,  by  the  law  of  nations,  have  l)een  invaiialiil 
rogardc'i    )ot]i  in  (ireat  Britain  and  tl,ie  United  iStatos  as  be!oiigin>>;  to  the  ailjaa'd 


''\fiitnal 
""'<Ior«too 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


83 


ress 
Tlu> 
tliiit 
4slou 

'  lisli 

OSS  ]\\ 
AW  111 

IVev  in 

Up;  tin' 

ion  *'K- 
\istaiun' 
it  timos. 

niiU's  M 
viul  \irai 
some  n-f- 
.  I'l'S'AVuiij; 
ivtillcry 

c  r.iilisli 

to  USsCV- 

Ll  rA\W. 
L.vy  uii'.iii 

|,;vlUi'iis  t'ui^ 
lu.out  111;  tlv 

[i  the  ciisi'i'i' 


:,l\vi>\>'"''''H 

moil  lishii":« 

,„  iuviniaW,5« 

the  a>!.:^u'oii« 

coiiiilry.  Ill  liu."  oii.s(!,  for  instance,  of  the  IJiui  dcs  Clialcnrs,  u  in'cnlhiily  wcU- 
maikod  and  almost  laiid-locUt'd  iiidi'iitation  oi'  the  Canadian  coasr,  tlu>  Id-niilc  limit 
would  be  drawn  Ironi  iioints  in  tin*  licait  of  Canadian  tcriitory,  and  almost  TO  miles 
from  tlie  natural  eiitnince  or  mouth  of  the  hay.  This  would  b(!  done  in  s[iito  of  the 
fact  that,  both  by  imperial  lej^islarioii  and  by  judicial  interpretation,  this  bay  has 
been  diiclaied  to  form  a  part  of  the  territory  of  Canada.  (See  Inijierial  Statute,  14 
and  1.")  Vict.,  ca)).  (i:? ;  and  Mouatt  v.  Mcl'hee,  .">  Sup.  Court  of  Canada  Reports,  p.  6(j.) 

Fioin  tbi.s  statenieiit  of  tlie  British  coiiteiitioii,  it  appears  that  the 
headland  theory  was  still  adhered  to  by  that  Government  in  March, 
1887,  hnt  it  was  admitted  that  it  had  been  relaxed  as  to  the  Bay  of 
Fiindy  for  special  reasons. 

]\Ir.  Bayard's  reply  to  the  "observations"  of  the  Maniuis  of  Salis- 
bury, which  is  set  forth  on  pages  ."iO  to  (>(>,  inclusive,  of  Senate  Execu- 
tive Document  Xo.  113,  first  session  of  Fiftieth  Congress,  refutes  the 
force  of  those  "observations"  by  citing  precedents  furnished  by  the 
conduct  (  f  the  British  Government  in  this  matter,  and  the  decision  of 
the  umpire  in  the  cases  of  the  Washincjton  and  the  A>'{iii,s.  in  wuich  be 
wholly  discarded  the  headland  theory-  and  made  an  award  in  favor  of 
the  owner. 

But  these  counter-statements  only  served  to  show  that  the  headland 
theory-,  in  its  a[)plicat'on  to  biiys  within  the  jurisdictional  limits,  was 
still  in  controversy  between  the  two  Goverumeuts,  and  that  there  was 
little  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  British  Government  to  yield,  as  there 
was  on  our  [lart  to  admit,  the  Justice  of  that  construction  of  tlie  treaty 
of  1318. 

These  contentions  made  it  necessary  that  a  better  understanding 
should  be  reached  ;  and  if  the  two  Governments  could  not  accomplish 
this  by  negotiation,  it  was  certain  that  increasing  strife  and  broils  be- 
tween their  people  would  seriously  eiuhmger  the  commerce  of  each,  and 
would  expose  both  countries  to  the  peril  of  being  driven  into  hostilities 
by  the  designs  of  vicious  men,  or  through  the  angry  contentions  of  well- 
meaning  ]>ersous. 

IX. 

Tin:  CLOSE  Ri  LATIOXS  ]5ET\VEEN  THE  PEOPEE  OF  CANADA  AM)  THE 
UNITED  STATES  IN  THE  USE  OF  THE  COMMON  RIGHT  OF  FISHERY 
MAKE  IT  IMPERATIVE  TO  REGUEATi:  THEHJ  ASSOCIA  TION  BY  FRIENDLY 
AtiREEMENT  RATHER  THAN  1!V  RI'.TALIATOK'V  LAWS. 

.Alutual  and  amicable  agreement  between  th-'two(rovernments,  clearly 
understood  ami  faithfully  exeDut<'d,  is  the  only  way  in  which  the  people 


'    '", 

\m 

1    iV 

m 

:  :i;  11 

'  '■ 

n 

ill 


1     |!-i 


84 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


of  Xewtbuiidlancl  and   Caiiadii   and    of  the  United    States  can  ever 
peacefully  enjoy,  in  common,  the  valuable  rij;lits  of  fisliery. 

lieciprocity,  in  some  form,  is  an  element  in  every  treaty  made  for  tlie 
settlementof  questions  that  are  sincerely  in  dispute  between  independent 
l)oweis.  In  all  of  our  treaties  with  Great  Britain,  relating"  to  the  extra- 
territorial rights,  liberties,  or  i)rivileges  of  each  in  the  other's  count ly 
or  jurisdiction,  recipro(;ity  has  been  conspicuously  stated  as  a  leading 
motive  and  purpose.     The  provisional  treaty  of  peace  of  Xovember  .'So, 

17S2,  sets  out  with  this  declaration: 

• 

Whereas  rcciproual  ;iilvaiitMj;i'.s  ami  iiiiitiial  convciiiciicc  are  loiiiul  by  cNiii'i'ii'uci'  ti> 
form  llic  only  ixTiiiaiii'iit  ioiiudalion  of  jicaci'  aiul  frieiulsliip  between  States,  il  is 
aj^reed  to  form  the  articlc^s  of  tbe  jiroposed  trciiity  on  wiich  ])riiici|iles  of  liberal  efiuity 
and  reciprocity  a,s  that,  partial  iidvantaf;es  (those  seeds  of  discord)  being  excluded. 
Mich  a  benelicial  and  satisfactory  interconrse  between  the  two  countries  may  lie 
established  as  to  ])roiMise  and  secure  to  both  peri)etiial  ]ieace  ami  harmony. 

This  declaration  was  repeated,  in  substance,  in  the  deUnitive  treaty 
of  peace  of  Sei)tember  .'»,  1783. 

lu  both  these  treaties  the  right  of  fishery  was  deiined  as  between  tlie 
l)eople  of  both  countries,  the  United  ^States  expressly  yielding  some  of 
the  liberties  they  had  enjoyed  in  common  with  the  colonies  that  re- 
nmined  subject  to  the  British  Crown  on  the  coasts  of  Xewfoundland  as 
as  to  curing  and  drying  lish  on  that  island. 

The  treaty  of  October  20,  1818,  was  made  "to  cement  the  good  un- 
derstanding which  happily  exists  between"  the  two  Governments.  In 
that  treaty  we  renounced  our  right  of  fishery  on  certain  coasts,  etc., 
but  regained  the  right  to  (uire  and  dr^-  fish  on  a  part  of  the  southern 
coasts  of  I"'nvfouiulland. 

Under  that  treaty,  which  was  reciprocal,  misunderstanding  arose  as 
to  its  meaning,  and  the  reciprocity  treaty  of  18.~>1  was  made,  in  ])art, 
"to  avoid  furtiier  misunderstanding  between  their  respective  citizon.s 
and  subjects  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  right  of  fishing  on  the  coasts 
of  British  North  America  secured  by  Article  I  of  the  Convention*'  ot 
1818,  and  "to  regulate  the  commerce  and  navigation  between  tluir  re- 
spective territories  and  people." 

The  extensive  reci[)rocity  of  this  treaty  continued  for  twelve  yetus, 

At  its  terminiition  by  the  United  St.ites  tlie  "misunderstandings" 
under  tlie  treaty  of  1S18  again  iirose,  when  tlnit  convention  bei;aiiiL' 
then,  as  it  is  now,  tlie  measure  of  our  treaty  rights. 

Tile  treaty  of  1S71  was  made  so  as  "to  provide  for  ai>  aniicabh' set 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY, 


85 


ever 

ideut 
iintry 
)oi'  iU>, 

■ii'uce  to 
tos,  it  i;* 
\\  (Miuity 

Kcluilc'll- 
;    llKiy    1h' 

e  tvoaty 

lis'eeu  the 
;  some  of 
,  that  re- 
,\illnml  as 

o;00tl  UU- 

lents.    In 
^iists,  etc., 
soutliei'u 

arose  as 

|e,  in  l>ait. 

:e,  citizens 

tbeeoasls 

leutioii"'  of 
u  their  n'- 

li'lvc  years, 

^tiuuli":-^ 
)n  became 

Lical.le  st'i- 


tlenient  of  cinses  of  difference  between  the  two  countries,"  and  arbi- 
tration and  reciprocity  pervaded  every  one  of  its  forty-three  articles. 

In  all  the  wide  range  of  our  treaty  engagements  with  the  treaty  ])ow- 
ers  of  the  world  there  is  scarcely  one  that  does  not  contain  some  mu- 
tual advantage;  or  reciprocal  concession,  and  they  cover  every  subject 
that  has  been  suggested,  in  the  experience  of  mankind,  as  being  fit  or 
convenient  to  be  settled  by  international  agreement  ratlier  than  to  be 
left  under  the  control  or  security  that  might  be  afforded  by  the  laws 
enacted  by  the  respective  countries,  \Yhich  they  could  alter  or  repeal 
at  pleasure. 

Xow  we  are  again  remitted  to  the  field  of  "misunderstanding,"  "in 
regard  to  the  extent  of  the  right  of  fishing  on  the  coasts  of  British 
North  AnuM'ica,"'  with  an  increased  number  of  cases  of  seizures  and  in- 
terferences with  our  fishermen  growing  out  of  those  disputes,  aiul  the 
(luestion  is,  whether  we  shall  abandon  all  eltorts  to  remove  these  mis- 
understandings by  further  agreements,  or  shall  we  treat  Cv'ery  claim  we 
umke  as  a  si}w  (pia  nan,  and  its  refusal  an  uUimatunif  and  resort,  as  the 
first  expedient,  to  retaliatory  legislation  to  enforce  it.  That  failing, 
shall  we  stop  and  abandon  tlie  claim,  or  prepare  for  its  support  l>y 
coercive  measures  ? 

lletaliatiou  may  secure  Just  dealing  between  nations  whose  interests 
are  entirely  distinct  and  separate;  but  that  is  not  our  situation  toward 
the  people  or  the  governments  of  Canada  or  Newfoundland. 

X. 

THE  CHARACTER  AND  VALUE  OF  THE  FISHERIES  OX  THE  COAST  OF 
LABRADOR  AND  THE  BANKS  OF  NEWFOUNDLAND,  AND  THE  INCREAS- 
ING DEMAND  FOR  FOOD-FISHES  TO  SUPPLY  THE  WANTS  OF  THE 
FEOPLE. 

The  inshore  fisliing  along  the  coasts  of  Labrador  are  the  best  we 
have  in  the  Clulf  of  !St.  Lawrence,  while  that  along  the  southern  and 
western  shores  of  Newfoundland  is  far  better  than  any  along  the 
coasts  of  Nova  Scotia  or  New  iirunswick. 

Our  plenii)otentiaries  who  uegotiated  the  treaty  of  1818  mention  these 
tacts  to  show  that  wo  lost  nothing  of  value  when  wo  gave  up  the  in- 
sliore  fisheries  of  Nova  Scotia,  and  gained  much  advantage  by  having 
access  to  the  shores  of  Labrador,  as  will  hereafter  appear  in  this  report. 

Mr.  Sabiiu',  in  his  report  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  1851*, 
;,'ive,s  a  very  interesting  account  of  tiie  fisheries  on  the  nortlieasteru 


■i.i 


mm 


llil 


86 


THJ':  fisi[p:kii-:s  tkeaty. 


coast,  from  which  we  make  the  followinj^  extracts,  found  in  Senate  lv\. 
Doc.  22,  second  session  Tliirty-secoud  Congress 

An  account  of  the  fishinj^-giouuda  bas  been  reserveil  for  thti  conchision.  Of  tlioso 
near  our  cities,  and  visited  for  the  purpose  of  8upi>lyiuj^  o\ir  niarkotn  with  lisli  to  lie 
consnnied  fresli,  it  is  unncci.'ssary  to  spealc.  I'iiose  within  the  limits  of  IJritisli 
America,  and  secured  to  us  by  treaty,  as  well  as  thote  on  tlie  eastern  coasts  of  Maiiu>, 
are  less  generally  known  and  may  properly  claim  attention.  Of  the  distant,  New- 
foundland  is  the  t)ldest.  That  vessels  from  ]5oston  fished  there  as  L-arly  as  tlic  year 
1645  is  a  fact  jJiescrvcHl  in  tli(^  journal  of  Governor  Winthro)).  TIk;  "great  lianlc," 
which  has  been  so  long  resorted  to,  is  said  to  be  aitout  200  miles  broad  and  nearly  tJDi) 
miles  long.  In  gales  the  sea  is  very  high,  and  dense  fogs  are  i)revaleiit.  The  water 
is  from  So  to  1)5  I'athoms  deep.  The  edges  of  the  bank  aie  iibrupt  and  composed  of 
rough  rocks.  The  best  lishing-grounds  are  between  the  latitudes  of  42°  and  40^  north. 
The  "  bankers,"'  as  the  vessels  emi)loyed  there  are  called,  anchor  in  he  open  sea,  at  a 
great  distance  from  the  land,  and  pursue  their  lia/.ai'dous  and  lontdy  employment,  ex- 
posed to  perils  hardly  known  elsewhere.  The  fish  are  caught  with  hooks  aiul  lines, 
and  (the  operations  of  splitting  and  dressing  performe<l)  arc  s.alted  in  bulk  in  the 
hold,  from  day  to  day,  until  the  cargo  is  completed.  The  bank  lish  are  larger  than 
those  t.aken  on  the  shocfs  of  Newfoundland,  butare  not  often  so  well  cured.  The  tirst 
American  vessel  which  was  litted  for  the  Labrador  liahery  sailed  fiom  Xewbuiypori 
toward  the  close  of  the  last  century.  The  business,  once  undertaken,  was  imrsued 
with  great  energy,  and  several  hundreil  vessels  were  engaged  in  it  annually  previous 
to  the  war  of  ldl2.  A  voyage  to  Labrador,  unlike,  a  trip  to  the  Banks  of  NewiVnnul- 
land,  is  not  without  pleasant  incidents,  even  to  landsmen,  The  coast  is  freipUMited 
for  a  distance  of  10  or  11  degrees  of  latitude.  It  has  been  preferred  to  any  other 
on  account  of  its  security  and  a  general  certainty  of  att'ording  a  supply  of  lish' 
Arriving  in  some  harbor  early  in  .June,  an  American  vessel  is  moored  and  remains 

tietly  at  anchor  until  a  full  "  fare"  has  been  obtained,  o,'  until  the  departure  of  the 
ti^h  reijuires  the  nnister  to  seek  another  inlet. 

The  lishing  is  done  entin  ly  in  boats,  and  the  number  usually  employed  is  one  for 
about  30  tons  of  the  vessel's  register.  Here,  under  the  management  of  an  exjieri- 
euced  and  skillful  master,  everytliing  may  be  rendered  systcMuatie  and  regular.  As 
soon  as  the  vessel  ha-s  been  secured  by  the  necessary  auchor.s,  her  sails  and  liiiht 
rigging  are  stowed  away,  her  dc^eks  cleared,  her  bo  Ms  litted.  and  a  day  or  two  spem 
in  fowling  and  sailing,  under  color  of  exploring  the  surrounding  waters  and  iixiiij; 
upon  proper  stations  for  the  boat.-',  aiid  the  master  announces  to  his  crew  that  they 
must  try  their  luck  with  the  liook  and  line.  Eaeli  lioat  has  now  assigned  to  it  ii 
skipper  or  master,  and  one  man.  At  *\u:  time  designated,  t!ie  nnister  departs  with  his 
boats,  to  tf  st  the  qualities  of  his  men,  and  to  nuirk  out  for  them  a  c«iiuse  for  their 
future  procedure. 

Nothings  could  be  more  injurious  to  men,  who  are  brought  into  such 
intimate  association  bj' their  common  riglit  of  fishing  on  those  distant 
shores,  than  a  policy  of  their  goveraineuts  which  woidd  »'auso  them  to 
sake  n'prisals,  the  stronger  against  the  wealcer. 

Hon.  Robert  J.  Walker,   Avhose  ability  as  a  statesman   is   nowhere 


TFIE    FISIIEIIIES    TREATY, 


87 


ill 


I  is  one  for 
[a  fxpi'vi- 
hilar.     A-^ 

and  li;J:1it 
jtwi)  siii'iu 
Lul  ii>^iii^ 

thut  tlu'V 
1,0(1  to  it  a 

ts  witli  his 
t  for  tlK'iv 


Into  Slirli 
10  t\i  stall  t 
L  them  to 


nowhere 


seriously  (luo.stioiieil,  in  a  lottcr  to  ^h\  Seward,  Secretary  ol"  State, 
dated  Ai>ril  2-1, 1808,  thus  describes  the  value  of  the  fisheries  as  sources 
of  food  supply.     lie  says : 

Piiil  tlicrc  ail'  otlicr  most  important  considiM'ations  connrctcd  with  extended  c-oast.s 
and  great  fi.slieries.  'I'lie  lislierie.s  are  caiiaMe  of  furnishing  more  and  elieajier  fund 
than  the  land, 

The  reasons  are  — 

yl)  Tho  o(!ean  surface  is  nearly  lonr  times  that  of  t lie  ! ami,  the  area  being  1  h'.OOO.OUO 
siiuare  miles  of  oeean  surface  to  r>'J.flOtt,(J()0  of  land. 


{•2)  The  oiM'an  everywhere  jirodiiees  fish,  from  the  ((|Uator  to  the  ]pole,  the  pi 


Olll- 


ion  of  siihmarine  animals  increasin'''  as  von  iio  norll 


I   up 


to  a  point  hnt  -l:;:)  miles 


Irom  the  yiolo  and  believed  to  extemi  there,  whereas,  in  cousefpieiico  of  monntains, 
deserts,  and  the  temperature  of  the  surface  of  the  earlli  in  very  high  latitudes,  less 
than  half  its  surface  can  Ije  cultivated  so  as  to  produce  fond  in  any  appreciable  qnai'.- 
tities. 

(li)  The  temper.'itiire  of  tiie  ocean,  in  high  latitmles,  bidng  nnudi  wai'iaer  than 
t'.iat  of  the  land  surface,  there  is  increased  profusion  (d"  sul)marine  animal  life,  esjie- 
ciuUy  in  the  Arctic  and  Atlantic  8cas,  where,  on  account  of  extreme  cold,  the  land 
siu'faco  produces  no  foo  1.  in  warm  latitudes  tlui  deep-st.>ii  tt^mpcrature  diminishes 
with  the  depth,  until  a  certain  point,  below  which  it  maintains  an  erpiable  tempera- 
tnro  of  40°  Fahrenheit.  Tin;  temperature  of  the(/cean  in  httirude  70-  (many  degrees 
warmer  than  the  land  surface)  is  the  same  in  all  (h'pths.  There  are  woudeiful  pro- 
visions for  the  multipliciition  (d' animal  life  in  the  ocean,  and  it  moderates  both  heat 
and  cold.  These  are  addLtionul  reasons  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  a  Polar  Sea,  filled 
with  a  far  greater  profusion  of  snbnuuine  animal  life  than  any  other  seas,  and,  as  a 
rouseciuence,  possessing  far  the  best  lisheries.  Indeed,  as  lish  progress  northward,  on 
;iecount  of  the  better  occiin  temperature  there,  as  also,  because  the  marine  food  there 
i-i  more  Jibuiulant,  there  <.'an  be  litth»  doubt  that  the  open  Polar  Sea  will  fnrin'sh  lish- 
>v'n'!i  of  incredihle  value. 

(4)  The  ocean  produce's  iV)od  in  all  latitudes  for  the  support  of  animal  submarino 
'ife.  These  are  squid  (the  principal  food  of  the  whale),  also  abumlauce  of  nutritious 
H'U-grasses,  etc.,  upon  which  the  lish  feed.     Pesides,  as  the  earth  is  more  and  more 

ultivated,  and  farms,  as  well  as  towns  and  cities,  drained  by  creeks  and  rivers  to 
ilic  seas,  the  submarim^  food  is  corresjiondingly  angmentcil.  Even  in  mid-ocean  the 
iiliosphoresceni.'e  observed  there  is  jiroduce  I  by  the  presence  in  the  water  id"  myriads 

if  living  aninuils. 

(5)  Whilst  the  earth  produces  food  by  plowing  its  snrlace  only  a  few  inches  deep, 
I  ilu'  ocean  supplies  myriails  of  lish,  tier  on  tier,  thonsands  of  fathoms  dee]).     Thus, 

;hi.'  registered  take  of  herrings  in  the  Scotcli  fisheries,  in  I'^Cil,  was  1)00,000,000, 
■\hiUt  that  of  Norway,  in  the  latitude  of  Iceland  and  (Jreenland.  was  far  gri'ater. 

Perhaps,  however,  the  nuiin  reason  why  tlu^  ocean  produces  so  nuich  m(U'e  food  for 
Mail  than  the  land  is,  that  whilst  land  animals  only  give  birth  to  one  or  two  of  their 
ymnii;  at  a  t  n\e,  some  fish  ])roduce  millions  of  ova,  to  be  matured  into  life.  Tluis,  ii 
|ii  iiijile  cod  has  been  found  to  contain  1.5,400,000  ova  ;  and  other  tiMh  ova  vtivying  front 
t'voral  millions  to  ;}(],0U0.  lleu'ce,  tho  vast  success  attending  the  increased  i>rodnc- 
ioii  of  lish  by  transfer,  bv  sowiiu  the  soawn.and  other  methods  know  to  ichthyology. 


a 


88 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


Nothinj?  could  more  certiiiuly  lessen  the  food  supply  of  the  people. 
Avliicli,  after  all,  is  the,  basis  of  all  human  progress,  than  to  promote 
strife  amongst  llshermen  visiting  the  same  waters,  A  i)olicy  that  leads 
to  such  a  result  is  an  inJuHtice  to  the  human  family. 

'So  wealth,  national  or  personal,  can  bo  justly  earned  when  it  eoiiiH,^ 
from  diminishing  the  sujiply  of  human  food. 

With  all  our  vast  excess  of  cereals  and  of  animal  food  we  still  need 
all  the  fish  we  can  gather  fiom  the  oceans  ami  seas  for  tlie  comfort  and 
economy  of  living,  esiiecially  among  the  industrial  classes  of  our  ra[)- 
idly  increasing  poi)ulation.  The  Atlantic  and  Tacific  fisheries  rank  in 
importance  along  with  the  produ(;tion  of  beef,  mutton,  and  pork  as  a 
source  of  food  sup[)ly,  and  as  a  competitive  element  in  the  food  markets 
even  of  this  abumlant  country. 

Our  fishing  rights  and  liberties  along  the  coasts  of  Labrador  ami 
Newfoundland,  as  fixed  by  the  treaty  of  1818,  are  rights  to  be  enjoyed 
in  common  with  the  British  people,  and  are  such  as  no  other  nation 
has.  They  are  partnership  rights,  in  the  intimate  character  of  the  as- 
sociation, in  their  labors  and  privileges,  of  our  fishermen  with  theirs, 
No  two  nations  were  ever  drawn  into  a  closer  relationshi]),  or  one  in 
which  good-will  and  mutual  forbearance  were  more  essential  to  tlie 
profitable  pursuit  of  a  great  in<lnstry,  than  that  established  between  us 
by  the  joint  struggles  of  the  colonies,  conlirmed  by  the  treaty  of  178u, 
and  renewed,  as  to  ports  of  Labrador  and  Newfoundland,  almost  witli- 
out  restriction,  by  the  tr«;aty  of  ISIS. 

As  to  this,  by  far  the  most  essential  part  of  the  rights  reserved  to 
us  in  that  treaty,  we  can  no  more  preserve  and  enjoy  its  value  to  us, 
under  the  plan  of  reprisals,  through  retaliatory  laws,  upon  Britisli 
commerce,  than  coi)artneis  can  promote  their  joint  business  interests 
by  each  one  attempting  constantly  to  destroy  the  value  of  the  other 
partners  share  in  the  venture. 

Our  vessels  and  theirs  are  iinchored  side  by  side  in  the  bays,  or 
follow  the  same  schools  of  fish,  and  capture  them  wherever  they  are 
found  along  these  coasts.  One  fisherman  entices  the  fisli  around  liis 
vessel  with  bait  and  another  comes  in  and  takes  what  he  can  Mitli 
his  lines  or  nets,  just  as  if  the  whole  business  was  a  copartnership. 

If  these  vessels  belong  to  countries  that  are  arrayed  in  commercial 
hostility  based  upon  retaliatory  laws  and  ready  to  break  out,  ui)(iu 
slight  provocation,  into  a  war,  their  friendly  association  will  be  im- 
possible. 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


89 


note 
eatls 

omcs 

•t  iind 
IV  rai)- 
i\uk  in 
•k  as  a 
arUots 

Lor  aiul 
jiijoyed 
•  nation 

tlie  as- 
J  theirs. 
ii-  one  in 
1  to  tlic 

,'ecn  US 

of  1781), 
-)st  witli- 

'vved  to 
uo  to  as. 
Bvitisli 
interests 
:he  otliev 

bays,  or 

tUey  are 

ound  liis 

can  Avitli 

sliip. 
mnneiciiil 

ut,  upou 

ill  1)0  im- 


XL 

THE  rsE  OF  FEEETS  TO  INTEUl'EET  A  TKEATY. 

Under  the  niisuu(U}r.sta.ndin.i>s  of  tlie  i)ast  wo  have  on  both  sides 
.sent  Uoet.s  to  these  water.s  to  protect  our  lisherinen  again.st  each  other^ 
and  against  the  unfriendly'  conduct  of  the  local  governnients;  fleets  to 
enforce  agreements  that  the  governments  concerned  could  not  expound 
by  a  mutual  understanding. 

If  these  (piestions  are  left  (»pon,  and  commercial  war  is  inaugurated 
through  measures  of  retaliation,  how  many  ships  and  guns  is  it  sup- 
po.sed  will  bo  needed  to  keep  the  peace  between  our  lishormon  on  the 
coasts  of  Labrador  ami  Is^wfoundland  '. 

The  danger  in  this  direction  does  not  come  from  tlio  desire  of  either 
Government  to  promote  a  war,  but  from  their  inability  to  prevent  its 
initiation  thri  gh  the  personal  hostilities  of  men  associated  in  the  use 
of  common  rights  and  privileges,  and  stimulated  by  rivalries  whicli  are 
encouraged  by  laws  of  retaliation  enacted  V>y  their  respective  (iovern- 
inents. 

These  are  some  of  the  dangers  against  which  thi.s  treaty  wisely  makes 
safe  provision. 

XII. 

THE  AREA  VIELUEI)  i;V  THE  DELIMITATIONS  (»F  THIS  TREATY,  As  COM- 
PARED  WITH  THOSE  YIELDED  BY  THE  HKITISH  GONERXMEXT  OX 
THEIR  CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  LIMITS  OF  OUR  "REXUNCIATION  "  UN- 
DER THE  TREATY  OF  181rf. 

It  is  alleged  by  some  that  this  treaty  yields  to  the  ih'itish  Govern- 
ment  50,000  sipiare  miles  of  exclusive  fishing-grounds  beyond  what  we 
yielded  in  the  treaty  of  ISIS. 

Taking  the  contention  of  the  United  States  that  no  headland  theory 
i.s  to  be  found  in  the  treaty  of  ISIS,  and  that  the  exclusive  fishing  limit 
i.s  a  line  3  miles  from  the  shore,  at  low  water,  that  enters  all  harbors, 
bays,  and  creeks  that  are  more  than  G  miles  wide  at  the  entrance,  and 
follows  the  sinuosities  of  the  coast  thereof,  this  estimate  of  the  area 
.surrendered  in  this  treaty  is  greatly  exaggerated. 

This  is  the  narrowest  limit  to  which  we  have  confined  our  renuncia- 
tion in  the  treaty  of  ISIS,  of  the  common  right  of  fishery,  in  our  con- 
tentions with  Great  Britain. 


ire 


■  M 


90 


TFIE    FI.^HKKIES    TKKATV. 


The  total  aivn  as  to  wliicli  wo  renomicml  the  coiiiinoii  ri{;ht  of  lisliin;;', 
acconliiif;'  to  tlii-s  ('onstriK-'tiou  of  that  tieiitv,  is  10,424  niuitieal  s(|ii;u(' 
iiiik's. 

Tlio  additional  area  of  rcMmnciatioii  under  the  delimitations  ol'  the 
proposed  treaty,  now  before  the  Senate,  is  1,127  sqiuire  miles,  Ixmhh 
OjV  per  <;ent.  addition  lo  the  former  area  of  exclusion. 

The  total  area  of  bays,  creeks,  and  harbors  not  more  than  <»  miles 
wide  at  their  mouths  is  about  (1,59!)  H<iuare  miles,  and  is  included  in 
the  above-mentioned  measurement  of  10,424  scjuare  miles. 

The  15ritish  (slaim  as  the  true  construction  of  the  agreement  in  tlic 
treaty  of  1818,  that  it  lixed  the  Hue  within  which  we  renoum;ed  llic 
common  right  of  fishery  at  the  distance,  measured  seaward,  of  ;{  mile.; 
from  the  entrance  of  all  bays,  harbors,  ami  creeks  of  His  jNIaJesty's 
dominions.  This  would  ad<l  an  area  of  o,48U  square  miles  to  the  ex- 
clusive fishing  grounds  claimed  by  the  lUitish  Government,  while  the 
area  in  Avhicli  we  have  renounced  the  common  right  of  lishing  in  those 
bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  under  the  pro[)Osed  treaty  now  before  the 
Senate  is  1,127  square  miles. 

Thus,  umler  the  Dritish  contention  that  (roverument  3'ields,  in  this 
treatj',  3,489  square  miles  of  exclusive  tishiug  waters  to  the  i)eople  of 
the  United  States  as  a  common  fishery,  and  we  yield  1,127  square  miles 
to  the  Eritisli  Government  as  exclusive  fishing  waters,  which  we  now 
claim  to  enjoj'  with  them  as  a  common  fishery  under  our  construction 
of  the  treaty  of  1818,  whicli  they  refuse  to  admit. 

They  yield  more  than  two-thirds  of  their  claim  to  us,  and  we  yield 
less  than  one-third  of  our  claim  to  them,  for  the  sake  of  settling  forever 
a  dispute  that  has  lasted  for  seventy  years,  and  has  been  in  every  way 
a  costly  and  disturbing  contention  to  our  people.  (See  official  state- 
ment from  the  Coast  Survey,  marked  I).) 

If  these  disputed  areas  were  the  richest  fisheries  in  the  world,  the 
settlement  of  our  respective  rights  in  them,  as  arranged  in- the  treaty 
now  before  the  Senate,  should  be  welcomed  by  the  American  people 
with  entire  satisfaction. 

When  we  knew,  from  the  examination  and  report  of  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  "Relations,  that  this  dis[)uted  area  is  of  no  real  ad- 
vantage to  our  fishern^.en,  and  tliat  this  statement  is  supported  by 
conclusive  evidence,  furnished  by  the  Halifax  Commission,  and  byl'ro- 
fessor  Baird,  our  former  Commissioner  of  Fisheries,  no  ground  seems  to 
be  left  for  the  coiitention  of  those  wlio  oppose  this  settlement. 


TlIK    FISIIKRIES    THKATY. 


xrri. 


01 


SI 


i 


THE  VIEWS  OF  Tiir,  ri;i;siDi;NT  of  'I'ii::  i:xitkd  .states  as  to  the 

riiOl'Ell  EXECFTIOX  OF  THE  ACT  OF  CONGUESS  OF  MAKCH  :?,  ISH7, 
OPPOSED  TO  THOSE  OF  THE  (JAI'ITAEISTS  WHO  CONTROL  OFR  FISll- 
INCi  IXIJI.'STUV  AXD  HEAP  THE  (HIEATEST  ADVANTAGES   FEo.M  THEM. 


)vld,  tho 
e  treaty 
W  people 

lito  Com- 

veal  ad- 

Lrted  l>y 

ll  by  ri'»- 
seems  to 


The  president  of  tho  Ameiiciin  Fishery  Union,  in  1SS7,  broni^ht  the 
sidtject  of  retuliiition  to  the  attention  of  tlio  President  of  the  United 
Stiite.s,  and  insisted  that  it  sliould  be  applied  only  to  the  exclusion  of 
Britisli-Anierican  lisliin;^'  ])r<)diicts  from  tiie  markets  of  the  United 
States.  To  that  demand  the  President  of  the  United  States  replied  a.s 
follows : 

•  ExHcrnvH  Man-iov, 

ir<txhiiigl()u,  1).  ('.,  .tpvil  7,  Ifi-iT. 

(iKNTLKMr.x-  I  liiivo  iHH'civod  yoiiv  li'tti-'i"  liiti'ly  ii'Mrcsscil  to  iiii\  autl  liiive  j;iv(Mi 
full  coiisidorjUion  to  tlii>  expression  cf  tho  viuv.-s  iiml  wi.shos  tlxireiii  contiilia'd  in 
I'.liition  to  tli((  existiiijj;  tliffuf(Mico.s  IxUwoon  tlio  Govcnmiciit  of  Grout  Uritiiiii  !iii(l  tlio 
riiited  States  j:;fo\viiiijj  out  of  tlui  rcfiisiil  to  ir.vard  lo  oiir  citi/oiis  oiif'-fi<;ed  in  tisliiii};' 
I'literprist's  tlic  jprivilcucs  to  which  they  are  entitled  either  under  treaty  stiiMilatiniiH 
111'  tho  j^nfiranties  of  international  comity  luid  neij^hborly  eoncossion.  I  siiieerely 
irii.st  tlio  ai>)>rehension  yon  exju'ess  of  unjust  and  unfriendly  treatun-nt  of  Anieriean 
lisliernien  lawfully  found  in  Canadian  waters  will  not  he  realized;  but  if  sneh  ap- 
prehension should  prove  to  be  well  founded,  I  earnestly  lioiic  that  no  fault  or  ineon- 
^ilte^ato  action  of  any  of  our  citizens  will  in  tlie  least  weak(ni  the  just  position  of  our 
lidveriuneiit,  <u'  dejirivo  ns  of  the  univer>al  sympathy  au'l  sn;)|iort  to  which  we  should 
lie  entitled. 

The  action  of  this  aduiinistration  since  June,  l-''^.'(,  whim  the  fishery  articles  of  tho 
ii'caty  of  L-^Tl  were  terminated  under  the  notitieatio'i  which  had  two  years  before 
"ten  given  by  our  Government,  has  been  fully  disehised  by  tho  eorrespondenee  be- 
tween tho  representatives  aiul  the  ai)|tn)pri;\t(>  ilcpartnieuts  of  the  respective  (Jov- 
iinments,  with  which  I  am  ap]irised  by  your  letter  you  ari'  entirely  familiar.  An 
•  xiuuiuation  of  this  corresp<nidenco  has  doubtless  satistiiMl  yo'.i  that  in  no  case  have 
tlio  rights  or  privjleges  of  American  fishermen  been  overlooked  or  neglected,  but 
I  that,  on  tho  contrary,  they  have  been  .sedulously  insisted  upon  and  cared  for  by  every 

lU'iuis  within  tlie  control  of  tlie  executive  branch  of  the  (iDverniiU'iit. 

The  act  of  Congress  approved  March  I'.,  I^?7,  authorizing  a  course  of  retalian<ni, 
Itiiioi-'rh  executive  action,  in  the  event  of  a  continuance  ou  the  i)art  o  '  the  Urithsh- 
lAmerican  authorities  of  unfriendly  conduct  and  treaty  violations  all'ecting  American 
[tisheriuen,  has  devolved  n[ion  tho  Presidinit  of  the  United  States  exceedingly  grave 
liiiil  solenm  vesiionsibilities,  comprehending  highly  important  conseciuences  to  our 
Inatioual  character  and  dignity,  and  involving  extremely  valuable  commercial  inter- 
Iconrse between  the  British  possessions  in  North  America  ami  the  people  of  the  United 
Istates. 


.hill 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


J5  0 


Ilia 

IlilM 


*6  J 

^  m 


1^ 

12.2 

M 

1.8 


1-4    IIIIII.6 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


\ 


4 


,v 


% 


V 


<^ 


■^^ 


o 


^* 


6^ 


iw  ^^ 


% 


'i>    #1 


<> 


<?) 


V 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


I 


:<\. 


&. 


L<*/ 


(/j 


02 


THE    FISHEKIKS    TREATY. 


I  uudorstand  the  main  purpose  of  your  letter  is  to  siijfgesfc  that,  iu  e;ise  leooursc  to 
the  retaliatory  nioa«ures  authorized  by  this  act  should  bo  invited  by  unjust  tre;itiiieiir 
of  our  lishernien  in  tlio  future,  the  object  of  such  retaliation  nii^lit  be  fully  aeeoiu- 
plished  by  "  prohibiting  Canadian-eaught  lish  from  entry  into  the  ports  of  the  I'liired 
«tates." 

The  existinji;  controversy  is  one  in  which  two  nations  are  the  parties  concirn'.'d. 
The  retaliation  contemplated  by  the  act  of  Conjrress  is  to  be  enforced,  not  to  protect 
solely  any  particular  interest,  however  meritorious  or  valuable,  but  to  maintain  the 
uational  honor,  and  thus  protect  all  our  jieople.  In  this  view  the  violation  of  Aincri- 
<'an  fishery  rij'lits  ami  unjust  or  unfriendly  acts  towards  a  i»ortion  of  our  citizens  en- 
gaged in  this  business  is  but  the  occasion  for  action,  and  constitutes  a  national  atVroiit 
which  gives  birth  to  or  may  justify  retaliation.  This  measure  once  resorted  to,  its 
eftectiveness  and  value  may  well  depend  upon  the  thoroughness  and  extent  of  its 
application;  and  in  the  performance  of  international  duties,  the  enforcement  of  in- 
ternational rights,  and  the  protection  of  oni  citizens,  this  Government  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States  must  act  as  a  unit,  all  intent  n'.on  attaining  the  best  result  of 
retaliation  upon  the  basis  of  a  maintenance  of  national  honor  and  duty. 

The  nation  seeking  by  any  means  to  maintain  its  honor,  dignity,  and  integrity,  is 
engaged  in  protecting  the  rights  of  the  people;  and  if,  in  such  efforts,  particular  in- 
terests are  injured  and  special  advantages  forfeited,  these  things  should  bo  patriotic- 
ally borne  for  the  public  good.  An  innnensis  volume  of  population,  manufactures  and 
agricultural  productions,  and  the  marine  tonnage  .and  railways  to  which  these  have 
given  activity,  all  largely  the  result  of  intercourse  between  the  United  States  ami 
British  America,  and  the  natural  growth  of  a  full  half  century  of  good  neighborhood 
and  frii  adly  communication,  form  an  aggregate  of  material  wealth  and  incidental 
relation  of  most  impressive  magnitude.  I  fully  appreciate  these  things,  and  am  not 
nnmindful  of  the  great  number  of  our  people  who  are  concerned  in  such  vast  am! 
diversified  interests. 

In  the  performance  of  the  serious  duty  which  Congress  has  imposed  upon  me,  and 
iu  the  exercise,  upon  just  occasion,  of  the  power  conferred  under  the  act  referred  to, 
I  shall  deem  myself  bound  to  intlict  no  nnnecessary  damage  or  injury  upon  any  por- 
tion of  our  people;  but  I  shall,  nevertheless,  be  unflinchingly  guided  by  a  sense  ol' 
what  the  solf-respect  and  dignity  of  the  nation  demand.  In  the  maintenance  of  these 
und  iu  the  support  of  the  honor  of  the  Government,  beneath  which  every  citizen  may 
repose  in  safety,  no  sacrifice  of  personal  or  private  interests  shall  be  considered  as 
against  the  general  welfare. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

Gkovek  Clkvei,am\ 

Georok  Stkklk, 

President  American  Fishery  Union,  and  others, 

Gloucester,  Mass, 

From  this  letter,  to  which  the  minority  of  the  committee  refer  with 
great  satisfaction,  as  a  correct  exp3sitioii  of  the  duties  that  Congress 
has  imposed  upon  the  President  in  the  enforcement  of  our  laws  of  retal- 
iation, it  will  be  seen  that  the  present  administration  will  treat  this 


THE    FLSHKRIKS   TRKATY. 


93 


subject  in  the  siiine  sense  that  Congress  lias  treated  it,  as  a  question  of 
national  concern,  and  not  as  a  means  of  promoting  the  pecuniary  inter- 
ests of  those  who  control  and  derive  the  chief  i)eneht  of  our  fisheries, 
such  as  the  owners  and  outfitters  oi  fishing  fleets,  and  warehousemen 
iiud  those  engagetl  in  salting,  ilrying,  an«l  canning  fish  for  the  interior 
markets. 

The  hardy  fishermen  of  the  United  States  will,  we  believe,  also  be 
protected  in  the  administration  of  our  retaliatory  laws,  and  other  similar 
statutes,  against  the  common  practice  that  speculators  in  the  fishing 
industry  now  resort  to  of  i)lacing  their  vessels  in  charge  of  captains 
and  crews  imi)orted  from  Canada,  because  they  can  underbid  our  fish- 
ermen in  the  matter  of  wages. 

This  practice  is  a  far  more  serious  injury  to  our  lisliermen  and  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  than  would  come  from  yielding  twice  the 
area  of  fishing  Avaters  that  are  yielded  by  the  delimitations  of  this 
treaty,  even  if  they  were  good  fishing  waters.  It  has  already  compelled 
many  of  our  best  fishermen  to  withdra>v  from  this,  and  to  seek  a  living 
in  other  pursuits. 


vis 


. 


'"  'i;. 


XIV. 

THE  QUESTION  OF  THE  IJHITLSH  HEADLAND  THEORY,  AS  TO  SMALLEli 
]5AYS  AND  HARIiORS  ALONG  TIH-:  COASTS,  AND  THE  LLMITS  OF  OUR 
RENiJNCLVnON  OF  THE  RKJHTS  OF  FISHING,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF 
THE  RESTRICTIONS  UPON  TtlE  RIGHTS  OF  OUR  FISHERMEN  TO 
ENTER  THE  IJAYS  AND  HARBORS  OF  15HITISH  NORTH  AMERICA,  ARE 
.MATTERS  OF  DISPUTED  RIGHT.  ADMISSIONS  MADE  HERETOFORE  BY 
AMERICAN  DIPLOMAITSTS,  AS  TO  THE  DIFFICULTY  OF  CONSTRUING, 
(JRAMMATICALLY,  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  TREATY  OF  1818,  GIVE  COLOR  TO 
THE  BRITISH  CONSTRUCTION,  AND  PROVE,  AT  LEAST,  ITS  SINCERITY. 

It  is  boldly  asserted,  in  opposition  to  this  treaty,  that  there  is  no  sort 
of  equivalent  for  the  1,1-7  s(piare  miles  of  fishing  waters  that  we  con- 
cede by  the  fixed  lines  of  delimitation  in  this  treaty.  This  assertion 
impeaches  both  the  right  of  the  Britisli  Government  and  the  sincerity 
of  its  claim  of  the  hea«lland  theory,  as  it  applies  to  bays  more  than  0 
miles  wide  at  the  entrance.  Nevertheless  that  assertion  is  much  weak- 
cued  by  the  olUcial  opinions  of  eminent  xVmerican  publicists,  communi- 
cated to  the  British  Government. 

If  the  territorial  claims  of  both  Governments  were  sincerely  asserted, 
as  we  believe  they  were,  in  reference  to  the  fishing  waters,  the  modifi- 
eation  of  them  bv  mutual  consent  has  ahvavsbeen  held  in  the  conduct 


T 


94 


THE    riSHEIJIES    TREATY. 


! 


of  nations  us  a  good  equiviileut,  moving  from  each  to  tlio  other,  for  the 
ooneessioiis  mutiuilly  made.  Tliis  doctrine  is  also  applied  by  the  courts 
as  between  individuals  to  support  agreements  based  on  theconsidcratioii 
of  yielding  or  settling  disputed  claims. 

In  contrastwith  the  assertion  of  the  utter  want  of  reason  in  the  chiiius 
of  Great  Britain,  based  on  the  headland  theory,  we  lind  many  stroii'> 
declarations  of  our  Government.  ]\lr.  ^lonroe,  Secretary  of  State,  on 
])ecember  30,  1810,  admitted  that  a  discussion  of  riyhf.s  should  he 
avoided  when  mutual  concessions  iccre  necessary  to  bring  the  trcatiipoicer.s 
to  a  mutual  agreement.     Ue  said  to  JMr.  Bagot : 

In  providiii};  for  tlio  accoimnodation  oftho  citizeusof  the  United  States  enjjaijcd  in 
the  tiaheiies  ou  the  coasts  of  His  Britaunic  Majesty's  colouics  on  conditions  advaiita- 
geons  to  both  pai'ties,  I  concur  in  tbe  sentiment  that  it  is  desirable  to  avoid  a  discus- 
sion of  iheh'  respective  rights,  and  to  jiroceed,  in  a  sjjirit  of  conciliation,  to  exaiiiiiic 
what  arrangement  will  he  adequate  to  the  object.  The  discussion  which  has  already  taken 
place  between  onr  Governments  lias,  it  is  presumed,  placed  the  claim  of  each  jmrtg  in  a 
just  light. 

Our  claim  then  was  that  we  had  a  common  right  of  lishery,  on  all  tlio 
coasts,  with  the  people  of  the  British  Xorth  Anierican  Possessions. 

The  British  Government  then  claimed  that  the  war  of  1812-15  had 
destroyed  all  our  claims  in  such  fisheries.  On  the  28th  July,  1818,  3Ir, 
Adams,  Secretary  of  State,  instructed  Mr.  Gallatin  and  Mv.  l*ush  iis 
follows: 

The  President  authorizes  you  to  agree  to  an  article  whereby  the  United  States  will 
desist  from  the  liberty  of  lishi!i!i;,  and  curing,  and  drying  lisli  xrilhin  the  Ihiti.'ih  jiois- 
diction  f/eneraJli/,  ni)oii  condition  that  it  shall  bo  secure<l  as  a  permanent  right,  nut 
liable  to  be  impaired  by  any  future  war,  from  Cape  liny  to  llnmea  Islnnds,  and  fi-ow 
Mount  Joli,  on  the  Salvador  coast,  through  thet'lraits  of  Belle  Isle,  indefinitehj  north,  alonij 
the  coast ;  the  right  to  extend  as  well  to  curing  and  drying  the  lish  as  to  lisliing. 

This  instruction  was  certainly  much  more  liberal  to  the  subjects  of 
Great  Britain  than  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  that  was  made  under  it. 
But  the  instruction  stated  the  demand  of  the  United  States,  and  tlio 
British  have  a  right  to  argue,  at  least,  that  the  treaty  was  intended  to 
conform  to  it  as  to  the  principles  involved  in  it. 

Claiming  absolutely  the  right  to  enjoy  these  fisheries  in  common  with 
the  Canadians,  and  basing  our  claim  upon  the  highest  considerations  of 
justice,  we  were  met  with  the  counter-claim  of  Great  Britain,  that  al! 
our  fishing  rights  in  Canadian  waters  were  granted  to  us  by  the  treaty 
of  1783,  and  that  that  treaty  had  been  abrogated  by  war.  In  this  dis 
pute,  which  was  vital,  we  found  so  much  reason  for  an  adjustment,  that  I 


THE    FISHERIES   TREATY, 


9.") 


for  tlio 
couits 
evation 

\  (ilaiiiih 
•  strou;;- 
tate,  on 
ould  be 
lipotrei'H 

ii>!:ii;;('(l  ill 
s  adviuit;i- 
d  a  discus- 
o  cxaniiiii' 
ciidy  taken 
fi  partij  hi  a 

on  all  till' 
sious. 
.2-15  had 
1818,  Mr. 
lUxsli  as 

States  will 
hltitih  jinis- 
tri;?bt,  nut 
th,  aud  />'«"' 

uorih,  ahiii'j 
isliing. 

ubjocts  of 

Tie  under  it. 

|s,  and  tlio 

11  tended  to 

Innion  ^vitll 

levations  oi' 

In,  that  ill! 

the  treaty 

[n  this  dis 

Itnent,  tliat 


onri)leni])otentiarie.s  oft'ered  to  Great  Britain  tlie  .surrender  of  our  rights 
to  tiie  extent  they  wei'e  renounced  in  th<5  treaty  of  1818. 

Our  i)k'nii>otentiaries,  in  explaining  the  treaty  to  our  Government, 
.say: 

It  \Yill  also  Ito  perceived  tliat  we  insisted  on  tlio  cianso  l»y  whicii  Mie  United  .*^tates 
ronoiiMce  tlielr  rij^lit  to  tlie  lislierics  reliiuiiiislied  by  tl\e  conventinn,  that  claus(>  li'-ini; 
omitted  in  tlio  lirst  Brilisli  ('oimlei'-innject. 

Wo  insisted  on  it  willi  tlio  view:  (1)  Of  jireventiai;  any  imiilicutiou  tliat  the  li.-ih- 
eriea  secured  to  us  were  a  new  <xraiit  and  ol"  ]>huin^"  the  iierniiiuenet!  of  tlie  ri<^lils 
secured  !iud  of  those  reuoimced  ]>recisely  on  the  same  footiiij^;  (■^)  of  its  heiui^' ex- 
])ress]y  stated  that  our  rvninicititioii  extendeil  only  to  the  distance  of  three  ihil''s  from 
the  coasfH. 

The  rea.son.s  they  a.s.signed  for  the  importance  of  this  [)oint  bring  into 
seriou.s  doubt  the  question  whether  thi.s  renunciation  extended  to  the 
ocean  coast.s,  or  the  coa.sts  of  the  bay.s.    They  are  as  follows: 

This  last  point  was  the  more  important,  as,  with  the  exception  of  the  iisliery  'ni 
open  boats  within  certain  Iiarbor-i,  it  api)eared  from  the  (Mininuinieations  alcove  luen- 
tioned,  tliatthcfishing-tjronndon  the  n  hole  coa-it  of  Nova  Scotia  in  more  tlian  three  milcn 
from  the  nhores;  whilst,  on  ttie  contrary,  it  is  almost  nnircrmlli/  close  to  the  shore  on  the 
coasts  of  Labrador.  It  ii  in  that  point  of  rieir  (Iiat  the  pririlciie  of  entering  the  ports  for 
Khelter  is  useful,  and  it  is  hoped  that,  with  that  provision,  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
actual  fisheries  o\  that  COAST  (of  Nova  Scotia)  wiU,  notuilhstandingthe  rennnvialion, 
be  prcserreil. 

In  view  of  these  declaration.s  of  our  plenipotentiarie.s,  who  negotiated 
the  treaty  of  1818,  no  cen.sure  can  be  due  to  Daniel  Webster  for  having 
expressed  the  opinion,  in  what  i.s  termed  his  '•p*'^^^''i"i'^tion''  to  oiu' fish- 
ermen, that  ''it  wouhl  appear  that,  by  a  .strict  and  rigid  construction  of 
this  article"  (of  the  treaty  of  1818),  "  tishing  vessels  of  the  United  States 
are  precluded  from  entering  into  the  bays,"  etc.,  and  that  "  it  was  un- 
doubtedly an  oversight  in  the  convention  of  1818  to  make  so  large  a 
concession  to  England,  since  the  United  States  had  usually  considered 
that  these  vast  inlets  or  recesses  of  the  ocean  ought  to  be  open  to  Amer- 
ican fishermen,  as  free  as  the  .sea  itself,  to  within  tliree  miles  of  the 
shore." 

It  was  not  until  March,  184.">,  that  the  Bay  of  Fundy  was  declared 
open  to  our  fisheries  by  the  British  Government,  on  condition  "//trtf 
they  do  not  approacli,  except  in  caseft  Hpccijieil  hi  the  treaty  of  1818,  within 
three  miles  of  the  entrance  of  any  hay  on  the  coast  of  Nova  Scotia,  or 
iS'ew  Brunswick." 

Gn  the  17th  September,  1815,  the  governor  of  Nova  Scotia  was  in- 


'  Ii' 


96 


THE  fisiierip:s  treaty. 


stnicted  by  the  Dritisli  Govermnciit  that  tho  i)enni.s.si()ii  to  fisli  thut 
liatl  been  concedetl  to  us  in  tlio  Jiay  of  Fundy  did  not  oxteiid  '-to  the 
Day  ot'Clialeur  and  other  huge  bays  of  similar  character  on  the  coast 
t)f  Xova  Scotia  and  Xew  Brunswick,"  and  that  they  ^'sfill  (uUicrc  to  (Ik 
fitrict  letter  of  the  treaties,''^  of  which  i\rr.  Webster  afterwards  spoke  in 
his  circidar  letter  in  1852. 

^lany  other  disputations  have  occurred  over  the  meaning-  of  tliis 
treaty,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  renunciation  of  our  fishing  rights  witliiu 
.i  miles  of  tho  coasts,  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  the  British  Xortli 
American  possessions,  and  wo  aro  not  aware  that  any  of  them  luive 
been  definitively  settled.  Mr.  Everett,  minister  to  Clreat  Britain,  on  the 
l25th  jMarcli,  1845,  replied  to  the  letter  of  Lord  Aberdeen,  stating  tlie 
action  of  the  British  (lovernment  in  relation  to  our  right  to  fish  in  the 
Bay  of  Funday,  in  which  Lord  Aberdeen  said: 

The  iiiider.sisi'Ud  will  coiiCme  liiiiisi'lf  to  stating  that,  after  tho  most  deliberate  re- 
consideration of  tho  subject,  and  with  every  desiro  to  do  full  justico  to  the  I'niteil 
.Stfites,  and  to  view  tho  claims  jnit  forward  on  behalf  of  tho  United  States  citizens  in 
the  most  favorable  li^ht,  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  nevertheless  still  constrained 
to  deny  the  riglit  of  United  States  citizens,  under  tho  treaty  of  1818,  to  fisli  in  that  part 
of  tho  Bay  of  Fundy  which,  from  its  geographical  position,  may  properlj-  bo  con- 
sidered  as  Included  within  tho  British  possessions. 

]Ier  Majesty's  Government  still  maintain— and  in  this  they  are  fortitied  by  high 
legal  authority — that  the  Bay  of  Fundy  is  rightfully  claimed  by  Great  Britain  as  a 
bay  within  the  meaning  of  tho  treaty  of  1818,  and  they  equally  maintain  the  jKisition 
which  was  laid  down  in  the  note  of  tho  undersigned,  dated  tho  loth  of  April  last,  tliat 
with  regard  to  tho  other  bays  on  tho  British  American  coasts  no  United  States  iish- 
ermau  has,  under  that  convention,  tho  right  (o  fish  within  3  miles  of  the  entrance  of 
such  bays  as  designated  by  a  lino  drawn  from  headland  to  headlaiul  at  that  entrance. 

That  treaty  was  then  27  years  old.  It  is  now  70.  But  j\Ir.  Edward 
Everett,  instead  of  recommending  war  as  tho  means  of  meeting  this  tlat 
denial  of  our  rights,  that  are  now  considered  so  ,  lear  as  to  be  indisputa- 
ble, rejilied  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  in  the  same  spirit  that  subsequently  poi- 
vadcd  ^Ir.  AVebster's  circular  (above  quoted),  as  follows: 

Speaking  of  the  attitude  of  tho  United  States  as  to  the  British  con- 
striictiou  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  ho  says: 

While  thej'  have  ever  been  prepared  to  admit,  that  in  tho  letter  of  one  exiu'cssidii 
of  that  instrument  there  is  some  reason  for  ehiiniing  a  right  to  exclude  United  States 
tishei'men  from  the  l^ay  of  Fundy  (it  being  dil'licult  to  deny  to  tliat  arm  of  the  .sea 
tho  name  of  "  bay,"  Avhich  long  geographical  usage  has  assigned  to  it),  they  Iiave 
ever  strenuously  maintained  that  it  is  only  on  their  own  construction  of  the  entire 
article  that  its  known  design  in  reference  to  tho  regulation  of  tho  lisheries  admits  (jf 
being  carried  into  eflect. 


'TUK    FISHERIES    TRIIATY. 


!>7 


Ui;iL 
»  the 
ioast 
(>  the 
ivCi  ill 

:  this  - 
k'ithiu 
North 
havo 
on  the 
ig  the 
iu  the 

oratt',  re- 
B  United 
tizens  iu 
istraiiunl 
that  piirt 
f  bo  cou- 

l)y  liisli 
itiiiii  as  a 

pdsitioii 
last,  tliat 
aics  lisli- 
ntrance  of 

trance. 

I  Edward 

this  Hat 

ldisi)iita- 

litly  per- 

[ish  eon- 

hxiivessiim 
jtcd  States 
|)t'  tlK-  soa 
ihoy  li.ivo 
Ithe  eiitin' 
admits  ol' 


Will  Mr.  Evorctt  also  In?  censured  for  fiiulin^^:  diniculties  in  the  head- 
land theory  of  the  IJritlsh  Governtnent  (ao  clearly  stated  l>y  Lord 
Aberdeen)  that  stafrgered  Mr.  Webster's  honest  mind  in  1852  ? 

A  still  more  conspicuous  and  «leliberate  prescnitatiou  of  the  dillicnlty 
of  arriving  at  a  satisfactory  construction  of  the  first  articleof  thetrr»aty 
of  1818,  and  of  the  i)ropriety  and  necessity  of  an  agreement  ^ith  (h'eat 
Britain,  as  to  its  true  meaning,  is  found  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  EvartS; 
Secretary  of  State,  to  JNIr.  Welsh,  our  minister  to  England,  of  Septem- 
ber 27,  1878.     Mr.  Evarts  says : 

If  tlio  boiKivolont  nit'tliotl  of  urhitratidii  Itetweon  iiation.s  is  to  coniiiuiKl  itsolf  as  a 
discreet  aiuT  i)ractical  dispositio?!  of  iiitcriiiitioiial  disimtcs,  it  must  Ix;  l>y  adtio  main- 
tenance of  the  safety  and  into^jrity  of  the  transaction,  in  the  essential  point  of  the 
award,  observing  the  limits  of  the  submission. 

Hut  this  Government  is  not  at  liberty  to  treat  the  fisheries  award  as  of  this  limited 
intercHt  and  operation  in  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  to  the  important,  perma- 
nent, and  dilhcult  contention  on  the  Kiibjeet  of  the  (isheries,  wliich  for  sixty  years 
lias,  at  intervals,  preHsed  itself  upon  the  attention  of  the  two  (Jrovernmenrs  .'ind  dis- 
i|iiieted  their  people.  The  temporary  arranf;emont  of  the  lisheries  by  the  treaty  of 
Washinj^tou  is  toraunable,  at  the  pleasure  of  either  party,  in  less  tlian  seven  years 
:Vom  now. 

And  he  then  proceeds  to  argue  that  if  this  Government  acquiesced  in 

the  measure  of  damages  assessed  by  the  Commission,  our  rights  might 

i  be  prejudiced  after  the  twelve  vears'  period  expired.    Ileferring,  further 

I  oil  in  the  dispatch,  to  the  historical  aspect  of  the  matter,  Mr.  Evarts  said : 

Our  diplomatic  intcrcourso  has  unfolded  the  views  of  successive  British  and  Ameri- 
Ican  cabinets  upon  the  conllicting  claims  of  mere  rij^ht  on  the  one  side  and  the  other, 
|;iiul  at  the  same  time  ovinced  on  both  sides  an  amicablo  preference  fur  practical  and 
liiaceful  enjoyment  of  the  fisheries,  compatibly  with  a  common  interest,  rather  than 
III  sacrifice  of  such  common  interest  to  a  jjurpose  of  insisting  upon  extreme  riglit 
I  at  a  loss  on  both  sides  of  what  was  to  each  the  advantage  sought  by  the  contention. 

In  this  disposition  the  tiro  countries  have  inclined  more  and  more  to  retire  fri)in  irrecon- 
iikhle  disputations  as  to  the  true  intent  covered  by  the  somewhat  careless  and  ccrtalnhj 
Vnmmplete,  text  of  the  eonviniion  0/I8I8,  and  to  look  at  the  true  elements  of  jji-olits  and 
Iniosperity  in  the  iisiieiies  themselv<!8,  which  alone,  to  the  one  side  or  the  other, 
luuule  the  shares  of  their  respective  participation  therein  worthy  of  dispute.  This  seii- 
Isible  and  friendly  view  of  the  matter  iu  dispute  was  greatly  assisted  by  the  expe- 
Irieuce  of  the  provincial  populations  of  a  period  of  common  enjoyment  of  the  lisheries 
h'dhout  attention  to  any  sea-line  of  demarkation,  but  with  a  certain  distribnlion  of  indus- 
\tm1  and  economical  adcantatjes  in  the  ]}rosecution  and  the  product  of  this  common  enjoyment. 

Here  is  almost  an  exact  repetition  of  Mr.  AVebster's  declaration  of  IS 52 
BSto  the  unsatisfactory  and  uncertain  character  of  the  convention  of 
pis,  especially  to  the  "sea-line  of  demarkation." 
S.  Mis.  109 7 


II 

Is 


:r: 


r !  '11  • 


m 


II 


98 


THE    FIHHKRIES    TREATY. 


A«to  the  rei>reseiitationa  made  by  the  Seoretary  of  State  fo  t\w  l;iir. 
isli  minister  in  \Va.sliin<»ton  in  the  <;ases  of  the  Joseph  ISforj/  and  DiiriA 
J.  A(]amfi,  in  notes  dated  respectively'  the  10th  and  20th  of  -May,  l,s,S(] 
the  Eai"!  of  Koisebony  commnnicated  to  Sir  Lionel  West  a  report  of  tin 
Canadian  ministt  r  of  marine  and  lislieries,  copj'  of  wliicliwas  coiniiini 
nicated  to  Mr.  JJayard  by  ]\lr.  IIardin<>',  JJritish  charrjc  (Fa tja ins,  oi 
August  2,  188(5.  From  this  report  tlie  followinf;'  in  roi>ly  to  Tvlr.  Jjay 
>ard's  arf;nment  for  commercial  privileges  is  here  quoted : 

III  addition  ti)  Miis  I'vitlenco,  it  miihl  1)i)  romembored  that  the  United  States  (ujvl 
•orumeut  udtnitlcd,  in  tln>  case  snhmitted  by  them  before  the  iralif;ix  Commission  H 
1877,  that  neitiier  the  Convention  of  1818  nor  the  Treaty  of  Washington  contViri"] 
v'luy  right  or  jtrivih^j^e  of  tra<linj;  on  American  lishennen.  Tiie  IJritisli  case  chiinK;, 
compensation  for  thi;  privih-ye  wiiiidi  had  been  {^ivcni  since  the  ratilicatiini  of  th 
latter  treaty  to  United  States  fishiny;  vessels  "  to  transfer  cargoes,  to  ontlit  mssi'IJ 
by  supplies,  obtain  ice,  eiigagc  sailors,  procure  bait,  and  traflic  ginieraliy  iti  iSiitisj 
ports  and  harbors." 

This  claim  was,  however,  successfully  resisted,  and  in  the  United  States  case  it 
nniintained  "  that  the  various  incidental  and  reciprocal  advanta;;es  of  ilio  ticat] 
such  as  the  priviU\i;(!s  of  traHic,  purchasing  bait  and  other  supplies,  an;  not  the  mi| 
ject  of  compensation,  because  the  Treaty  of  \Vashington  confers  no  such  rights  on  tl 
inhabitants  of  the  United  States,  who  now  enjoy  them  merely  by  snlferance,  and  w] 
can  at  any  tinn;  be  deprived  of  them  by  the  enforcement  of  existing  laws  or  the 
enactment  of  former  oppressive  statutes.     Moreover,  the  treaty  does  not  pnui'li' 
any  possil)Ie  compensation  foi'  such  privileges." 

Still  later  ii  reply  to  the  representations  made  by  Mr.  Pheli)s,  at  Li 
don,  was  written  by  the  Canadian  minister  of  justice.  From  liis  leiJ 
we  quote  the  following : 

But  even  at  this  barrier  the  difficulty  in  fi)llo\ving  Mr.  Phelps's  arginncnit  by  wjij 
ho  seeks  to  reach  the  interpretation  he  desires,  <loes  not  end.     After  taking  a  view 
the  treaty  which  all  authorities  thus  forbid,  he  says:  "Thus  regarded,  it  appears 
me  clear  that  tiie  words  '  for  no  other  purpose  whatever,'  as  employed  in  tlie  tic; 
mean  for  no  other  purpose  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty."    Taku 
that  sense  the  words  would  have  no  meaning,  for  no  other  purpose  would  be  loii« 
ent  with  the  treaty,  excepting  those  mentioned.     lie  proceeds,  "or  prejudicial  ti)j 
interests  of  the  provinces  or  their  inhabitants."     If  the  United  States  anthoriticij 
the  judges  as  to  what  is  prejudicial  to  those  interests,  the  treaty  will  have  very 
value;  if  the  provinces  are  to  be  the  judges,  it  is  most  prejudicial  to  tjieir  iiiti 
that   United  States  fishermen  should  be  permitted  to  come  into  the  harbors  on j 
Ijretext,  and  it  is  fatal  to  their  lishery  interests  that  these  fishermen,  with  wliom] 
have  to  compete  at  such  a  disadvantage  in  the  markets  of  tlie  United  States,  skj 
bo  allowed  to  enter  for  supplies  and  bait,  even  for  tiie  pursuit  of  the  deuii-sca 
eries.     Before  concluding  his  remarks  on  this  subject,  the  undersigned  would  ntj 
a  passage  in  the  answer  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  to  the  case  of  Her  M;ije 
Government  as  presented  to  the  Halifax  Fisheries  Commission  in  1877  :  "Tiic  vaj 


Wliio 

was  Jlj 

Tin 

expre; 

ma  tic 

dei)uti 

merits 

him  ju 

In  V 

retorsi 


THE  fisiii:hii:.s  tueatv, 


99 


iiicidoutiil  iiinl  ri'ciprorul  advantages  of  the  treaty,  sucli  us  tin-  i>rivilop>s  of  tiiitlir, 
piirchasiiijj;  bait  and  t»tliiM'  sui»i)li<'s,  arn  not  tlio  subjuct  of  comiKMHation,  bucanso  tbn 
treaty  of  WaHhington  confers  no  snch  ri<j;lit.s  on  tlu^  inhabitantM  of  the  I'nited  States, 
1(7(0  now  enjoji  them  invnl;/  by  sufferance,  and  uho  ci(»  iit  uny  time  he  deprived  of  I  hem  hy 
the  enforcement  of  exintimj  Iaw»  or  the  re-enf or  cement  of'  former  opprexsice  statiiten." 

If  tlio  proclainatioii  of  1830  and  the  order  in  council  of  that  year  ex- 
tend«^l  to  the  tishin.u  vessels  enf;aj;ed  in  the  tisheries  adjacent  to  the 
IJritish  I'rovinces  on  the  North  Atlantic  and  repealed  the  treaty  of  1818, 
in  its  restrictive  i)arts,  the  i)Osition  taken  by  the  l^nite<l  States  before 
the  Halifax  Commission  was  a  serions  error. 


XT. 

A  TRECKDENT  WAS  ESTABLISHED  HY  IMJESIDENT  JACKSON  IN  l-:!4  AS  TO 
THE  WISDOM  OF  F(^R1!EAIJANX'E  IX  COMMERCIAL  RETALIATION,  OR 
IN  MAKIN(t  REPRISALS  FOR  A  AVILLFUL  VIOLxVTION  OF  TREATY  0«- 
LIGATIONS,  AS  TO  THi:  MEANING  OF  WHICH  TIIEh'E  WAS  NO  DIS- 
PUTE,  RATHER  THAN  DISTURB  SERIOUSLY  THE  INTERESTS  OF  OUR 
PEOPLE. 

The  results  of  a  firm  but  pacific  policy'  in  demandinji'  a  compliance 
with  treaty  obligations  with  friendly  powers  are  stronyly  exemplified 
in.  the  conduct  of  President  Jackson,  in  reference  to  the  treaty  of  July 
4,  1831,  with  the  French  Government. 

By  that  treaty  France  acknowledge*!  an  indebtedness  to  the  United 
States  of  25,000,000  francs,  payable  in  six  annual  instalments,  with 
inteiTSt,  the  first  due  February  7,  1833.  The  Chamber  of  Deputies,  by 
a  majority  of  eight,  refused  to  enable  the  King-  to  carry  out  the  treaty 
by  withholding  the  necessary  appropriation.  This  was  on  the  alleged 
ground  that  our  plenipotentiary,  having  a  superior  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  had  obtained  an  undue  advantage  of  the  French  negotiator  in 
the  terms  of  the  treaty. 

The  reply  of  Mr.  Livingston,  that  he  had  obtained  the  information  on 
which  he  had  acted  almost  exclusively  on  papers  obtained  in  France, 
was  a  conclusive  vimlicatiou  of  that  good  and  eminent  man. 

This  and  subsequent  refusals  of  the  deputies,  together  with  irritating 
expressions  of  the  French  Government,  caused  the  withdrawal  of  diplo- 
matic intercourse  with  that  Government.  And  demands  of  the  French 
deputies  that  President  Jackson  should  withdraw  certain  forcible  com- 
ments made  by  him  in  his  messages  to  Congress  on  this  subject  gave 
him  just  cause  for  indignation. 

lu  view,  however,  of  the  serious  results  that  always  follow  reprisals, 
retorsions,  and  retaliations,  even  under  the  heat.of  a  just  indignation 


100 


THE    riSlIKKIKH    TKKATY, 


l\)r  a  tia;jnint  wron^',  President  Jackson  thus  advised  Coufjress,  in  iiis 
sixth  annual  niessa;?o  (IS;M),  as  to  thi?  policy  of  such  action  : 

Our  institutions  nro  cssfnliiilly  imcitii'.  I't^iK^o  ami  friumlly  intcrroiirHD  wjtli  ;iii 
iiations  arc  as  nineh  tlu^  (Icsjic  ol'  our  (iovornini'nt  as  they  are  tlic  interest,  of  our 
j)e()|)le.  Uiit  tliese  olijects  aro  not  to  Ixs  jier  nancntly  seenred  liy  NnrreiKh-rin;^  tlie 
ri;;lits  of  our  eiti/.ens,  or  iuM'iiiil  tin;;  SDJeinii  treatii's  for  tlicir  indenmitv  in  cusrs 
ot"  liai^raiit  wron;;  to  !>(>  aln((;;iite(l  or  set  aside. 

It  is  uinlonlttedly  in  the  power  orCon^iress  seriously  to  all'cot  tho  a;;rienltiir;il  umiI 
niannfaetnrin);  interests  of  France  liy  tiie  pa-saiiti  of  laws  relatiuj;  to  lier  trade  witii 
tho  United  States.  Her  j>rodncts,  nianufaeturos,  and  tonnaf^t*  nuiy  ho  sulyeeted  1" 
hoavy  duties  in  our  ports,  or  allconiniercial  intercourse  witli  lier  may  be  suspcndid. 
But  tliere  Jire  powerful  and,  to  my  mind,  o(»ncluHivc  objections  to  this  mode  of  pin- 
eeedinf;;.  We  can  not  embarrass  or  cut  olf  tho  trade  of  Franco  witliont  at  tin;  .sanie 
time,  in  some  degree,  embarrassing  or  cutting  off"  our  own  trade.  Tiie  injiu'y  of  such 
a  warfi.re  nnist  fall,  though  uuei|ually,  ujion  our  own  citizens,  and  could  not  but  ini- 
l)air  tlio  means  of  tlie  Governnnint,  and  wcak<Hi  that  united  sentiment  in  HU]>port  of 
the  rights  and  honor  of  tho  nation  which  must  now  pervade  every  bosom. 

Xor  is  it  impossible  that  such  ii  course  of  legislation  would  introduce  once  mrjie 
into  our  national  councils  these  disturbing  questions  in  relation  to  the  taritf  of  duties 
which  have  been  so  recently  put  to  rest;  besides,  by  every  measure  adopted  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  with  the  view  of  injuring  Franco,  the  clear  pcr- 
cei)tion  of  right  which  will  induce  our  own  people,  and  tho  rulers  and  people  of 
all  other  nations,  even  of  France  herself,  to  pronounce  our  qnarrel  .just,  will  be  ob- 
scured, and  the  support  rendered  to  us,  in  a  linal  resort;  to  more  decisive  measures, 
will  be  more  limited  and  equivocal. 

There  is  but  one  point  in  the  controversy,  and  npon  that  the  whole  civilized  world 
nuist  pronounce  France  to  be  in  tho  wrong.  We  insist  that  she  shall  pay  us  a  sinii 
of  money  which  she  has  acknowledged  to  bo  due,  and  of  the  justice  of  this  dennuul 
there  can  be  bnt  one  opinion  among  mankind.  True  policy  would  seem  to  dictate 
that  tho  question  at  issue  should  be  kept  thus  disencumbered,  and  that  not  tiie 
slightest  pretense  should  be  given  to  Franco  to  persist  in  her  refusal  to  make  \y,\\- 
nieut  by  any  act  on  our  part  affecting  the  interests  of  her  people.  The  (piestioii 
should  be  left  as  it  is  now,  in  such  an  attitude  that  when  France  fulfills  her  treaty 
stipulations  all  controversy  will  bo  at  an  end. 


XVI. 

BY  THE  DELIMITATIONS  FIXED  IN  THIS  TREATY  WE  YIELD  XOTIIlNt; 
THAT  IS  OF  ANY  VALUE  TO  OUR  FISHERMEN.  WHAT  WE  YIELD  18 
OF  VALUE  TO  THE  BRITISH  PROVINCES  AS  A  MEANS  OF  CONDUtmXii 
THEIR  LOCAL  GOVERNMENTS.  THE  TREATY  IS  A  JUST  AND  FAIR  SET- 1 
TLEMENT. 

The  treaty  now  before  the  Senate  wisely  and  reasonably  provides  foij 
the  settlement  of  all  disputed  questions  that  have  been  under  discussion  i 
by  the  two  Governments,  and  adds  greatly  to  the  privileges  ot  (mrj 
flshermeu  in  the  British-American  ports. 


THK    KISHERIKS    TREATY. 


101 


lu.s 

111  ;iU 
of  tiwr 
1-  111.' 

I'llSl-* 

•;\1  ;iiul 
l,>  with 
rtf.l    t" 

of  ItVd- 
M    SiUlU- 

of  rtucli 
liut  iiii- 

\\}\WYt  of 

\ico  luovc. 
of  (lutii'S 
h1  by  tlu! 
clear  r«r- 
peoi>li!  •'' 
rill  1)0  o1)- 
mciism'fs, 

lizoil  wovld 

UH  11  sum 

is  (\(>iiiaiul 

to  (lictiUd 

iii\t  not  till' 

iiiake  piiy- 

|)o  (iiu'stion 

her  iri'iity 


|^OTlU^'ti 
1Y1EL1>  1^ 
[DUCTIN':- 
[■'AIU  Sl-T- 

lovitles  for 

lliscnssitm 
les  of  uui'j 


In  a  publislit'd  letter  ol"  tne  cliief  eoniiscl  of  the  "ontlUters"  and 
owners  of  lisliinfj  vessels — Mr.  Wootlbiiry — ho  says,  that  "the  right  to 
fish  on  the  coast  of  Xova  Scotiii,  within  the  oinile  liniit,  onr  lishernien 
(!onsider  of  no  valne  whatever." 

The  report  of  the  Senate  ('oniniittee  on  Foreijin  Kclationsof  Jannary 

19,  1887,  on  the  value  of  inshore  lishinj^  riohts,  and  the  riyht  to  take 

•  or  bny  bait,  to  which  reference  has  been  nnide,  shows  conclusively  that 

they  are  of  no  valne  to  our  lisherinen.     In  their  report,  the  committee 

say : 

From  the  iiive.sti^atioiis  made  l»y  the  c  ominlttt'i'  duriDjj;  tlio  last  Humnu'r  and  fall, 
and  as  flio  result  of  tlio  f^reat  mass  of  testimony  taken  liy  it  and  herewith  letnrned, 
the  eomivittee  Itelieve  it  to  he  elear,  beyond  all  disimte,  that  the  ri<rht  to  htsh  within 
;'.  miles  of  the  Domuuon  nliorvn  in  of  iio  pracHail  utlruiitayn  iilidlctivr  to  Amcricaii  fnh- 
cnncii.  The  cod  and  halibut  fishing  has  been  for  many  years  almost  entirely  carried 
on  at  long  distances  from  the  shores,  in  the  deep  waters,  on  bunks,  etc.;  and  it  is  be- 
lieved that  were  there  absolute  liborfy  for  Americans  to  lish,  witln)nt  restriction  or 
regnlation  of  any  kind,  within  :$  miles  of  the  Dominion  sliores,  no  such  tisbernian 
would  ever  think  of  going  there  for  the  pnri>nS(M)f  catching  cod  or  halibut. 

"As  regards  the  obtaining  of  bait  for  this  class  of  fishing,  the  testimony  taken  by 
the  committee  in  its  inquiries  clearly  demonstrates  that  Iherc  is  uo  iicirHailif  whatever/or 
Jmericati  JixlurmeH  to  nnort  to  Canadian  waters  for  ihat  piirjwsc.  Clam  bait  is  found  in 
immense  qnautities  in  onr  own  waters,  and  there  have  been  instances,  so  frequent  and 
continnous  as  to  amount  to  a  habit,  of  the  Canadian  thvinnelres  rcHortin;/  to  .imerican 
ivatirs  or  2)ortn  for  the  2)i(ri)0!ie  of  obtaining  it.  The  squid  bait  is fonnd  on  the  reri/b(inkn 
irhcrc  thefishin()(/ot:s  on.  Sothiit  the  instances  would  becxfrimely  rare  when  any  .Imerican 
fishini)  vessel  would  wish  to  resort  to  a  Dominion  jiort  for  the  purpose  of  buying  bait 
for  this  kind  of  fishing 

"  It  was  also  proved  before  the  committee  that,  with  the  rarest  exceptions,  it  ivouhl  be  ah- 
soluteh/  injurious  to  thepecuniarji  interests  of  all  concerned  for  American  vessels  to  resort 
to  Dominion  ports  or  waters,  except  in  need  or  distress,  for  the  time  taken  in  such  depart- 
ures from  the  cod  and  halibut  grounds,  or  from  direct  sailing  to  and  from  them,  is  so 
(jreat  that,  with  or  without  the  difference  of  port  expenses,  time  and  money  arc  both  lost  in 
such  visits. 

"  In  respect  of  the  mackerel  fishery  the  committee  finds,  as  will  be  seen  from  the 
evidence  referred  to,  that  its  course  and  methods  hare  of  late  years  entirely  chanyed. 
While  it  used  to  bo  carried  on  by  vessels  fishing  with  hook  and  Uwc,  and  sometinua 
near  the  shores,  it  is  now  almost  entirely  carried  on  by  the  use  of  immense  seines,  calh  d 
imrse-seines,  of  gi-eat  length  and  descending  many  fathoms  into  the  water.  This  gear 
is  very  expensive,  and  a  fishing  vessel  does  not  usually  carry  more  than  one  or  two. 
The  danger  of  fishing  near  the  shore  with  such  seines  is  so  great,  on  account  of  strik- 
ing rocks  and  reefs,  that  it  is  regarded  as  extremely  liazardous  ever  to  undertake  it. 
.  Besides  this,  the  large  schools  of  mackerel,  to  the  taking  of  which  this  great  apparatus  is 
hest  adapted,  are  almost  always  found  more  than  I?  miles  from  land,  either  in  great  bays 
and  yul/e  or  entirely  out  at  sea. 


102 


TIIK    FISIIERIKS    TRKATV. 


Tliero  will  bo  foiiiid  accoinpaiiyiiij;  tliis  report  (hoo  Appoudix)  HtiiteiiiontH  hIiowjiih 
the  total  otitoh  of  nmckorcl  during;  certain  yeiirH  aiul  the  parlH  of  the  Henn  where  they 
have  been  taken ;  and  it  will  also  bo  neon  froni  the  ovidenee  that  in  i/oural  the  mackertl 
fiilteriiM  by  AiiicilcauH  in  the  (liilfof  SI.  Ldirrcncc  und  in  the  Hiii/  of  ('halcnr  hare  not  hem 
remnnentliir. 

In  view  of  all  thcHO  fuctn,  well  known  to  the  great  body  of  the  citizens  of  the  I'nitcil 
States  enjj;a};«'d  in  fislierios  and  onibraeinj?  every  variety  of  interest  connected  there- 
with, from  tlio  .wholodalo  dealer,  vessel  owner,  and  oiittilter,  to  that  portion  of  tlic 
crew  who  receive  the  snialleHt  share  of  the  ventnre,  it  ninst  be  considered  as  conelii- 
sivoly  esfablislwMl  that  there  wonld  he  no  material  value  whatever  in  the  (jrantbij  the  Urit- 
i»h  (lovernmcnt  to  American  fishermen  of  ahnohitehj  free  Jlnhimj ;  and  in  thin  vonchiHion  it  will 
he  Keen,  hi/ a  reference  to  thetentinivni/,  that  all  these  tnlerentH fully  conenr, 

Wlien  we  consider  tluit  the  inwliore  fisheries  are  of  no  viiliie  and  that 
the  right  to  take  bait,  or  to  bny  it,  is  worse  tlian  useless  to  our  peoido, 
the  alleged  surrender  of  tishing  territory  to  the  liritish  in  this  treaty 
is  of  far  less  consequence  to  us  than  the  surrender  we  made  in  1854,  to 
get  these  privileges,  b^-  purchasing  with  recii)rocity  the  repose  of  the 
British  contentions,  restrictions,  and  exclusions,  at  a  cost  to  our  reve- 
nues of  nearly  $10,000,000;  and  in  1871,  by  a  purchase  with  $5,500,000 
in  money,  and  a  great  sum  in  the  loss  of  revenues  on  fish  imported  from 
Canada. 

We  have  paid  for  everything  we  have  got  from  Great  Britain,  since 
1783,  in  connection  with  the  iisheries.  That  concession  was  the  last 
thing  we  got  under  our  Htriet  demand  for  ihe  rUjht.  It  is  the  last  thing 
we  will  ever  get,  without  (iompensation,  until  we  go  to  war  to  regain 
our  attitude  of  1783. 

The  extract  from  the  report  of  the  Senate  committee,  above  copied, 
shows  that  in  such  a  war  we  would  be  lighting  over  a  subject  that  is 
utterly  barren  of  any  actual  value  to  the  American  people — a  war  in 
which  the  principles  involved  would  have  no  relation  to  rights  secured 
by  international  laws,  but  would  relate  only  to  the  meaning  of  words  in 
a  treaty,  that  were  put  there  by  the  mutual  consent  of  two  enlightened 
Governments. 

This  treaty  closes  the  discussion  on  the  subject  of  delimitation  of  fish- 
ing boundaries,  a  matter  that  was,  in  some  sort,  provided  for  in  the 
treaty  of  1854. 

It  presents  a  fair  and  equitable  settlement  of  questions  that  have 
been  in  dispute  for  seventy  years. 

It  gives  our  flshermeu,  as  an  eipiivalent  for  the  concessions  we  make, 
largely  increased  privileges,  as  navigators,  bej'oud  the  narrow  and  in- 
hospitable provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1818. 


On  the  oth( 
l^een  conduct 
iPiitnaiu  and  I 
pe  rely  upon 
|wm  to  concl 
The  table  h 
h  all  the  app( 
loiiventious, 
Jriie  whole  nu 
lent,  without 
lnthority  of  C 
freiities  is  foui 


Tin;    KISIIEUIKS    TliKATV. 


lUlJ 


And,  for  the  llrst  timo  that  such  ii  thiii<:t  was  ever  atUMiipttid,  thin 
I  treaty  proposes  to  op(M>  th*^  door  to  wide  ••-oiniiienrial  privilcfjcs  for  our 
Itishcrnicn,  based  on  (joiuu'ssions  that  (roiuHMii  thiMu  alone. 

The  mo(h(H  rircndl  provided  in   the  protocol   enables  our  (Ishernu'n, 

iliirins;  two  llshinjif  seasons,  to  compare  the  vabic  of  tliu  very  broad 

lOiiiniercial  ]>rivile^es  therein  ac(!onled  with  tin;  price  of  annual  license 

lilt  .'id.no  per  ton  on  their  ships.     A  fisherman,  outfitting'  with   all  he 

liiccds  to  sustain  his  business  in  Canadian  i)orts,  and  havin<?  the  privi- 

jk'jje  of  sendinj;'  his  fares  to  our  market  under  bond,  over  railroads  and 

;lirouji:h  sucli  ports  as  would  be  easily  reached,  would  be  able  to  nuike 

|>()  nniny  more  voya.i(es  that  the  annual  license  of  ^l.oO  a  ton  on  his  ship 

Iffould  be  reduced  to  30  cents  or  10  cents  per  ton  on  the  voyajje.     If  the 

llmsiness  will  not  bear  such  a  tax  in  com|)ensation  for  such  i)riviU\i,'es, 

lit  is  scarcely  worth  a  war,  or  a  serious  disturbance  of  ;;ood  will  with  our 

|iit'i;,dibors,  to  secure  these  conjinereial  advantages  to  our  tishermen. 

We  venture  to  repeat  the  reconunendation  that  the  Senate  will 
lawait  the  developments  that  even  one  lishing  season  will  make  under 
Itliis  protocol  before  taking-  tinal  action  on  the  treaty. 


'^M 


XVIT. 

THERE  IS  NO  FAULT  1\  THE  MANNER  OF  NEGOLTATINU  THIS  TREATY, 
AND  THE  PKESIDENT  HAS  NOT  IN  ANY  WAY  EXCEEDED  HIS  CONSTI- 
TUTIONAL rO\VE[{S,  OR  WITHHELD  ANY  COURTESY  DUE  TO  THE  SEN- 
ATE IN  KESPECT  OF  TJtE  A(H:NTS  SELECTED  I?Y  I  DM  TO  CONDUCT 
THE  NEGOTIATION,  OR  IN  THE  TIME  OR  I'LACE  OF  NEGOT[ATIN(}  OR 
CONCLUDING  THE  TREATY. 


y 


On  the  other  question,  as  to  the  form  in  which  this  negotiation  has 
Ibeen  conducted  and  the  authority  of  the  two  ])lenipotentiaries,  Mr. 
Il'iitnam  and  Mr.  Angell,  to  act,  without  a  contirmation  l)y  the  Senate, 
lue  rely  upon  the  precedents  cited  in  the  annexed  brief  of  cases  that 
[seeiQ  to  conclude  any  question  on  this  point. 

The  table  hereto  appemUnl,  marked  C,  will  furnish  k>  easy  reference 
Itoall  the  appointments  of  diplomatic  agents  to  negotiate  and  conclude 
Iconventious,  agreements,  and  treaties  with  foreign  powers  since  1792. 
Ilhe  whole  number  of  persons  appointed  or  recognized  bj'  the  Presi- 
Itent,  without  the  concurrence  or  advice  of  the  Senate,  or  the  express 
lutliority  of  Congress,  as  agents  to  conduct  negotiations  and  conclude 
Itreaties  is  four  hundred  and  thirty-eight.    Three  have  been  appointeu 


104 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


bj'  tlio  Secretary  of  State  uiul  thirty-two  have  been  appointed  by  tlio 
Presiilent  witli  tlie  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

It  will  be  seen  that  an  interval  of  lifty-threo  years,  between  1S27uml 
1S80,  occnrred  dnrinf;  which  the  Tresident  did  not  ask  the  consent  of 
the  Senate  to  any  snch  aiipointinent. 

The  following  important  appointments  and  nniny  others  were  nnule 
when  the  Senate  was  in  session  : 

March '^f  IT'JU.— Davitl  IIiiiiii)liri('N.     15,v  WasliiiiKtoii.    CommiHsioned  plonipotontiiuy 

to  Irear,  with  AI<j;i('r.s.     C()nf;i('s,s  adjouriH-d  on  tliut  day. 
Javimri/  !2(),  ISi'i. —  Kdnuiiid   l^oliditH.     15y  .Jackson.     C<»niiniHHiouor   to   treat   willi 

Cocliiii  Cliinii  and  Siani.     ConyrcsH  in  sesHJon. 
M^ny ',),  Iit'IiH.— Natlianii'l  Nilcs.     Hy  Van  Huron,     Spcfial  agent  to  m';j,otiatii  treaty 

with  Sardinia.     (lonjjvcsH  in  Ko.sMion. 
jifnrrh  'JH,  ISlti. — A.  Dndley  Mann.     Hy  I'olk.     Special  agout  to  treat  witli  Himdry 

States  of  Clorniany.     Congress  in  Hcssion. 

The  constitutional  power  of  the  President  to  select  the  agents  tliroiij;li 
whom  he  will  conduct  such  business,  is  not  aflected  by  the  fact  that  tlic 
Senate  is  or  is  not  in  session  at  the  time  of  such  appointment,  or  while 
the  ney,otiation  is  being:  conducted;  or  the  fact  that  he  may  prefer  to 
withhold,  even  from  the  Sentite,  or  from  other  countries,  the  fact  that 
he  is  treating-  with  a  i)articular  junver,  or  on  a  special  sub.ject. 

The  secret  service  fund  that  Congress  votes  to  the  J)epartineiit  dt' 
State  anmuUly  is  that  from  which  such  agents  are  usually  paid.  That 
is  the  most  important  reasons  for  such  api)ropriation8. 

The  following  is  a  summary  of  Appeiulix  V  : 

Persons  ni)pointe<l  hy  the  I'n'sident  and  continued  by  the  Senate  : 

17'J:,'.  ■\Villiain  Carmicliael,  AVilhani  Shott,  to  treat  with  Spain. 

1794.  .John  Jay,  to  treat  with  Great  Britain. 

1794.  Thomas  Pinckney,  to  treat  with  Spain. 

179().  llnfns  King,  to  treat  witli  Great  Britain. 

1797.  .John  Q.  Adams,  to  tn-at  with  I'rnssia. 

J797.  .Jolm  Q.  Adams,  to  treat  witli  Sweden. 

1797.  C  C.  Pinckuey,  John  Marshall,  Elhridge  Gerry,  to  treat  with  France, 

1798.  John  Q.  Adams,  to  treat  with  Sweden. 

1799.  Rufns  King,  to  treat  with  Rnssia. 

1799,  Oliver  I'.llsworth,  Patrick  Henry,  and  William  Van  Mnrray,  to  treat  with 

France. 
1799.  W,  I\',  Davis,  i  ict!  Henry,  as  above. 

180:i.  James  Monroe  and  R.  R.  Livingston,  to  treat  for  Lonisiana. 
1H03.  Rufns  King,  to  treat  with  Great  Britain,  northeast  bonndary. 
1806.  James  Armstrong  and  James  Bowdoin,  to  treat  with  Spain. 
1814.  J.  Q.  Adams,  J.  A.  Bayard,  Henry  Clay,  and  Jimathan  Russell,  to  treat 

with  Great  Britain. 


THE   FISHERIES   TREATY. 


105 


PorsoiiH  appoiiitod  l)y  llio  l'r«'Hi(loiit  aiul  coiiCiviikmI  liy  tlio  Soiiato— Cniitimu'd. 

I8M.  Allxut  (jtalliitiii,  to  tnvifc  with  (Jrcat  Britain. 

182l5.  R.  C.  Amlorsoii  and  John  Sarf^cant,  to  treat  with  th«  American  uationH. 

1H27.  Jool  R.  I'oinm^tt,  t'icc  AiidorHon,  atmvc. 

IriHO.  .luMioH  H.  Aii;!;<iil,  Jolin  T.  Hwitt,  and  W.  H.  Prescott,  to  In-at   with 
China.  • 

Total  nnnd)('r,  ',V2, 
Persons  appointt'd  by  the  Siscretaiy  of  State: 

IH'Jf).  Christophwr  IIu^lios,  to  treat  with  l^onniark. 

lHii(>.  John  Jamos  Appk'ton,  to  treat  with  Naples. 
-      18H().  Gcorjie  H.  Hates,  to  treat  with  Ton-ja. 

Total  iinnilier,  'A. 
Persons  appointed  hy  tlio  President  : 

Total  i!unil)L'r,  4'.'>f.. 

John  T.  IMoPtGAN, 

l^LI   kSAULSBURV, 

.losEPii  E.  IJnowN, 
ir.  P..  Pavne. 


i 


Appendix  A. 


Uy   TlIK   PUKSIDEXT   OK     THE   UNITED   STATES    OF   AMEUICA. 


A   PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas  by  an  act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States,  i)asse(l  on  the  2i)tli  djiy  of 
May,  1830,  it  is  provided  that  whenever  tlio  President  of  the  United  States  sliall  re- 
ceive satisfiictorj'  evidence  that  the  Government  of  fJreat  Britain  will  open  the  ports 
of  its  colonial  possessions  in  the  West  Indies,  on  th»  continent  of  Sonth  America, 
the  Bahama  Islands,  the  Citicos,  and  the  lierninda  or  Sonier  Islands,  to  the  vessels  of 
the  United  States,  for  an  indefinite  or  for  a  limited  term;  that  the  vessels  of  the 
United  States,  and  their  cargoes,  on  entering  thecoronial  ports  aforesaid,  shall  not  be 
subject  to  other  or  higher  duties  of  tonnage  or  impost,  or  charges  of  any  other  de- 
scription, than  would  be  imposed  on  British  vessels  or  their  cargoes,  arriving  in 
the  said  colonial  jjossessions  from  the  United  States;  that  the  vessels  of  the  United 
States  may  import  into  the  said  colonial  possessions  from  the  United  States  any 
article  or  articles  which  could  be  imported  in  a  British  vessel  into  the  said  possessions 
from  the  the  United  States,  and  that  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  may  export  from 
the  British  colonies  aforementioned,  to  anji^  country  whatever,  other  than  the  domin- 
ions or  i)ossession8of  Gieat  Britain,  any  article  or  articles,  that  can  be  exported  there- 
from in  a  British  vessel,  to  any  country  other  than  the  British  dominions  or  posses- 
sions aforesaid — leaving  the  commercial  intercourse  of  the  United  States  with  all 
other  parts  of  the  British  dominions  or  possessions  on  a  footing  not  less  favorable 
to  the  United  States  than  it  now  is— that  then,  and  in  such  case,  the  President 
of  the  United  States  shall  be  authorized,  at  any  time  before  the  next  session  of  Con- 
gress, to  issue  his  proclamation  declaring  that  he  has  received  such  evidence,  and 
that  thereupon,  and  from  the  datp  of  such  proclamation,  the  ports  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  opened  indelinitely,  or  for  a  term  fixed,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  British 
vessels  coming  from  the  said  British  colonial  possessions,  and  their  cargoes  subject 
to  no  other  or  higher  duty  of  tonnage  or  impost  or  charge  of  any  description  what- 
ever than  would  be  levied  on  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  or  their  cargoes  arriv- 
ing from  the  said  British  possessions,  and  that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  said  Briti.sli 
vessels  to  import  into  the  United  States,  and  to  export  therefrom,  any  article  or 
articles  which  may  be  imported  or  exported  in  vessels  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  the  act  entitled  "An  act  concerning  navigation,"  passed  on  the  IHth  day  of  April, 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eighteen,  an  act  supplementary  thereto,  passcil  tlic 
tlfteonth  day  of  May,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty,  and  an  act  em  id 
"An  act  to  regulate  the  commercial  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  ccr- 
tiiin  British  ports,"  passed  on  the  lirst  day  of  March,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
twenty-three,  shall,  in  such  case,  be  suspended  or  absolutely  repealed,  as  the  case  may 
re([uire : 

And  whereas  by  the  said  act  it  is  further  provided  that,  whenever  the  ]torts  of  the 
United  States  shall  have  been  opened  under  the  authority  thereby  given,  British  ves- 
sels and  their  cargoes  shall  be  admitted  to  an  entry  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States 
from  the  islands,  provinces,  or  colonies  of  Great  Britain,  on  or  near  the  North  Ameri- 
can continent,  and  north  or  east  of  the  United  States: 

And  whereas  satisfactory  evidence  has  been  received  by  the  President  of  the  United 
Stiites  that  whenever  he  shall  give  effect  to  the  provisions  of  the  act  aforesaid,  tiie 
lOU 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


107 


Goveriiiuent  of  Great  Britain  nilloiieu  for  an  indefinite  period  the  ports  in  its  colonial 
possessions  in  the  West  Indies,  on  the  continent  of  Sontli  America,  tlie  Habanui 
Islands,  the  Caioos,  and  the  Bermnda  or  Sonier  Islands,  to  the  vessels  of  the  I'nited 
states,  and  their  cargoes,  npon  the  terms  and  accordinj^  to  the  reqnisitions  of  the 
aforesaid  act  of  Congress  : 

Now,  therefore,  I,  Andrew  Jackson,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  do 
liereby  declare  and  proclaim  that  snch  evidence  has  heen  received  by  me;  and  that» 
by  the  operation  of  the  act  of  Congress  passed  on  the  2'Jth  day  of  May,  1830,  the 
ports  of  the  United  States  are,  from  the  date  of  this  prochimation,  open  to  British 
vessels  coming  from  the  said  Britisli  possessions,  .and  tlieir  cargoes,  upon  the  terms 
set  forth  in  the  said  act,  the  act  entitled  "An  act  concerning  navigation,"  passed 
[  oil  the  18th  day  of  April,  1818,  the  act  supplementary  thereto,  passed  the  loth  day  of 
May,  IBiiO,  and  the  act  entitled  "An  act  to  regulate  tlie  commercial  intercourse  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  certain  Britisli  , ports,"  passed  the  first  day  of  March, 
\S'l,l,  are  absolutely  repealed,  and  British  vessels  and  their  cargoes  are  admitted  toan 
entry  iu  the  ports  of  the  United  States  from  the  islands,  provinces,  and  colonies  of 
Great  Britain  on  or  near  the  N(n'lh  American  continent  and  north  or  east  of  the  United 
I  States. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the  Tjth  day  of  October,  in  the 

year  of  our  Lord  iH:?(),  and  the  53th  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States. 

AxDKKW  Jackson. 
By  the  President : 

M.  Vax  Bukkx, 

Secretary  of  Slate. 


CmCUI.All  TO  THE  COLLECTORS  OF  CUSTOMS. 


■nay 
the 

lltl'S 

leii- 

[t.Ml 


TUKASL'RY   DEI'AUTMKNT,   Oc/o/xT  ti,  18:>0. 

Sir:  You  will  perceive  by  the  proclamation  of  the  President  herewith  transmitted 
I  that  from  and  after  the  date  thereof  the  act  entitled  "An  act  concerning  navigation,"' 
[passed  on  the  lath  of  April,  1818;  an  act  supplementary  thereto,  passed  the  l.'ith  of 
JMay,  ld:20 ;  and  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  regulate  the  commercial  intercourse  be- 
lnveen  the  United  States  and  certain  British  jiorts,''  passed  on  the  Ist  of  March,  18215,. 
lure  absolutely  repealed ;  and  the  ports  of  the  United  States  are  opened  to  British 
I  vessels  and  their  cargoes  coming  from  the  British  colonial  possessions  in  the  West 
I  Indies,  ou  the  continent  of  South  America,  th.e  Bahama  Isluids,  the  Caieos,  and  the 
lierninda  or  Soiner  Islands ;  also  from  the  islands,  i)roviiices.  or  colonies  of  (ireat 
Britain  on  or  near  the  North  American  continent  and  north  or  east  of  the  United. 
I  Mates. 

By  virtue  of  the  authority  of  this  proclamation,  and  in  conformity  with  the  arrauge- 
Inieiit  made  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  under  the  sanction  of 
lllie  President,  you  are  instructed  to  admit  to  entry  snch  vessels,  being  laden  with  the 
linodiictions  of  Great  Britain,  or  her  said  colonies,  subject  to  the  same  duties  of  toii- 
ImiSe  and  impost  and  other  idiarges  as  are  levied  on  the  vessels  of  the  United  States 
lor  their  cargoes  arriving  from  the  said  British  colonies.  You  will  also  grant  elear- 
];iiices  to  British  vessels  for  the  several  ports  of  the  aforesaid  (H)lonial  possessions  of 
liroat  Britain,  such  vessels  being  laden  with  sucli  aiticles  as  may  bo  exported  from  the- 
ll'iiited  States  in  vessels  of  the  United  States;  and  British  vessels  coming  from  the 
laid  British  colonial  possessions  may  also  be  cleared  for  foreign  ports  and  places 
lotlier  than  those  in  the  said  British  colonial  possessions,  being  laden  with  such  articles 
|ismay  be  exported  from  the  United  States  in  vessels  of  the  United  States. 
I  am,  sir,  very  respectf.illy,  your  obedient  servant, 

S.    D.    iNtillAM, 
Simtarii  o/'tlie   Treasiiry. 


Appendix  B. 


OKDER  IN  COUNCIL. 


At  tiik  CociiT  at  St.  Jamks', 

November  5,  1S30. 

Prescut:  The  King's  Most  Excellent  Majesty  in  Council. 

Whereas,  By  a  certain  net  of  Parliament,  passed  in  tlio  Utb  year  of  the  reij^n  of  his 
late  Majesty  Kinjj  George  the  Fourth,  entitled  *'An  act  to  regulate  the  trade  of  the 
British  possessions  abroad,"  after  reciting  that  "by  the  law  of  navigation  foreign 
ships  are  permitted  to  import  into  any  of  the  British  iwssessions  abroad,  from  the 
countries  to  which  they  belong,  goods  the  produce  of  those  countries,  and  to  export 
goods  from  such  possessions  to  be  carried  to  any  foreign  country  whatever,  and  that 
it  is  expedient  that  such  permission  should  be  subject  to  certain  conditions,  it  is  there- 
fore enacted  that  the  privileges  thereby  granted  to  foreign  ships  shall  be  limited  to 
the  ships  of  those  countries  which,  having  colonial  possessions,  shall  grant  the  like 
privilege  of  trading  with  these  possessions  to  British  shii>s,  or  which,  not  having  co- 
lonial possessions,  shall  place  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  this  country  and  of  its 
])OS8essious  abroad  upon  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  nation,  unless  his  Majesty, 
by  his  order  in  council,  shall  in  any  case  deem  it  expedient  to  grant  the  whole  or  any 
of  such  privileges  to  the  ships  of  any  foreign  country,  although  the  conditions  afore- 
said shall  not  in  all  respects  be  fullilled  by  such  foreign  country. 

And  whereas,  by  a  certain  order  of  his  said  late  Majesty  in  council,  bearing  date 
the  27th  July,  182(),  after  reciting  that  the  conditions  mentioned  and  referred  to  in 
the  said  act  of  Parliament  had  not  in  all  respects  been  fulfilled  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  that,  therefore,  the  privileges  so  granted  as 
aforesaid  by  the  law  of  navigation  to  foreign  ships  could  not  lawfully  be  exercised 
or  enjoyed  by  the  ships  of  the  United  States  aforesaid  unless  His  Majesty,  by  his  order 
in  council,  should  grant  the  whole  or  any  of  such  privileges  to  the  sliips  of  the  United 
States  aforesaid,  his  said  late  Majesty  did,  in  pursuance  of  the  powers  in  him  vested 
by  the  said  act,  grant  the  privileges  aforesaid  to  the  ships  of  the  said  United  States, 
but  did  thereby  i)rovi''  I  declare  that  such  privileges  should  absolutely  cease  and 

determine  in  His  Maj  .  otscssions  in  the  West  Indies  and  South  America,  and  in 
certain  other  of  His  Majesty's  possessions  abroad,  ujjon  and  from  certain  days  in  the 
said  order  for  that  purpose  appointed,  and  which  are  long  since  passed  : 

And  whereas,  hy  ^  certain  other  order  of  his  said  late  Majesty  in  council,  beariini; 
date  the  16th  of  July,  1827,  the  said  last  mentioned  order  Avas  continued; 

And  whereas,  in  pursuance  of  the  acts  of  Parliament  in  that  behalf  made  and  pro- 
Tided,  Ilia  said  late  Majesty,  by  a  certain  order  in  council  bearing  date  the  21st  day  of 
July,  1823,  and  by  the  said  order  in  council  bearing  date  the  27th  day  of  July,  182(J,  wus 
pleased  to  order  that  there  should  be  charged  on  all  A'esselsof  the  said  United  States 
which  should  enter  any  of  the  ports  of  His  Majesty's  possessions  in  the  West  Indies 
or  America,  with  articles  of  the  growth,  produce,  or  manufacture  of  the  said  States, 
certain  duties  of  tonnage  and  of  customs  therein  particularly  specified  ; 

And  whereas,  it  hath  been  made  to  appear  to  His  Majesty  in  council,  that  the  re- 
strictions heretofore  imposed  by  the  laws  of  the  United  States  aforesaid,  upon  I'rifisli 

108 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


109 


vessels  iiiiviffatiiifj  between  the  said  States  and  His  Majesty's  possessions  in  the  West 
Indies  and  America,  have  been  repealed,  and  that  the  discriniinatinjjj  dnties  of  ton- 
najje  and  of  customs  heretofore  imposed  by  the  laws  of  the  said  United  States  upon 
British  vessels  and  their  cargoes,  entering  the  ports  of  the  said  States  from  His 
Majesty's  said  possessions,  have  also  been  repealed  ;  and  that  the  ports  of  the  United 
States  are  now  open  to  British  vessels  and  thejr'  cargoes,  coming  from  His  Majesty's 
possessions  aforesaid ; 

His  JIajesty  doth,  therefore,  with  the  advice  of  his  ]irivy  council,  and  in  pursu- 
ance and  exercise  of  the  powers  so  vested  in  him,  as  aforesaid,  by  the  said  act  so 
passed  in  the  sixth  year  of  the  reign  of  bis  said  late  Majesty,  or  by  any  other  act  or 
acts  of  Parliament,  declare  that  the  said  recited  orders  in  council  of  the  "ilst  day  of 
July,  1823,  and  of  the  27th  day  of  July,  182(j,  and  the  said  order  in  council  of  the 
16th  day  of  July,  1827  (so  far  as  the  such  last  mentioned  order  relates  to  the  said 
United  States),  shall  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  respectively  revoked  : 

And  His  Majesty  doth  further,  by  the  advice  aforesaid,  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
powers  aforesaid,  declare  that  the  ships  of  and  belonging  to  the  United  States  of 
America  may  import  from  the  United  States  aforesaid  into  the  British  possessions 
abroad  goods  the  produce  of  t'uoso  States,  and  may  export  goods  from  the  British 
l)Osse8sions  abroad  to  be  carried  to  anj'  foreign  country  whatever. 

And  the  right  honorable  the  lords  commissioners  of  His  Majesty's  treasury,  and 
the  Right  Honorable  Sir  George  Murray,  one  of  His  Majesty's  principal  secretaries 
of  state,  are  to  give  the  necessary  directions  herein,  as  to  them  may  respectively  ap- 
pertain. 

Jas.  Bl'ller. 
.      A  true  copy  : 

Council  Office,  Whitehatj,,  Xov.  (Uh,  18:50. 


! 


J  I' 


110 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY, 


•a 


o 


v. 

3 


?  a     " 


rt'S 


*a 


a 
o 
Iz; 


.5  «=•> 

a  =  1-.- 


^      ea 

t  i 
cut 
etit 

3-2 

^.    .1-2.2- 
'55      a  5  a 

?  "'3 

§^-iJ 

"??2 

"    -3.5?- 

rs 

V  ^    0)  ^   OJ 

'/: 

O 

a)  B* 

.2?i.2  2.| 

c:^ 

j^'=5 

=  3  a.«  a 

* 

-^  a  '-^. 

j^''a  5  ? ' 


a  r  »j 


IS 


3a 


»i:      2 


s 


o 


O  to 

«  a 
S  ~ 


2  a  i- 

^  0^   SJ 


^V3 

-Si 

«'i 


-g  ii 

C-.  S    tl : 


a       t^ 
o   —  .o 


©■I 


>< 

w 

^ 

M 

13 

fl 

S 

;z5 

G 

W 

a 

f^ 

as 

& 

Ph 

<1 

employ 

OD 

fS 

»i 

9 

•^ 

"fe* 

H* 

g 

.5> 

.-  a 


c3  a 


s  a 

a  a 
o  o 


tl 


o 

a, 


Ji     -2 


fl 


§•3 


fl 

a     i: 

o 

o     .S 

%     If 

CO 

en 

a 

■->:>. 

a  ^  0 

Fl 

o 

s*^  = 

O 

y    w 

a>.§ 
a  2  o 
?r'5S 
=■  a.2 


o 
.£* 
'a 


o 


3«^a«i-"S-s 


fl 
fl 


a 

3 
'« 


a 

5 


2 
'« 


a 


a 
■3 


rt  ^  i:    — 

a  5  ^     r 


=  S  «    =. 
X  o:  ^ 


a-       .? 


?.S    5 


N 


S 


CIS 


.=  «  S 


3    ■§    ^ 


o 


PM        &4 


0^     Pm 


a 


a 
in 


«y>  O 


t(  Ih 


fl 

— 

1> 

•a 

Tl 

M 

»- 

a, 

Ch 

00 

Ol 

o 

Si 


a 


b     a      a     ^ 

3        '-5        1^ 


a 
o 


a  a 


P-         _- 


o 

e 


3     ii    = 


?l    >i 


a 


o 


..a 

a. 
a 
a 
W 

'? 

-i 


CD 

fl 


a 


< 

u 
g 

a 
1^ 


a 
'3 
C 

fl 


■20 

>a  SB 


Oaj-'  a 

3 

■Ha-iii) 

K 

«.S  /:  » 

;. 

jS  Ji.a 

I 

=->"  Sr 

3 

THE    FI.SIIERIES    TREATY. 


Ill 


2         b     a-= 

"S   .s  2  «■«•-. 
2  s      5  *  ° 

"3  a  .B-'a  -3  o  « 

o  «  «     «  2  'J  t' 

•53  3|£^S'^ 

»  M  K  xrn-V  9-3 
a  a  a-3^.=  r  - 
*  «  5.3 5—  '"•' 


a 

r3 


5-   »; 


4J  >  . 


►^   "   ■*•  **  .-; 


■^y 


T  ^ 

'3   3 


~     S3 


■J 

a 

a  3 


3  c 


t   '   3 


C    a       :=- 


a      a 


-  ;;  J-  -  r*  S 

.^  w  £  —  ■=  o 
?1     s     '.5 " 


i.    3 


-2| 
a<.2 


i       «; 


tt 


o 

-3 


«     2  - 


?    -; 


-     -":?»; 


Hi  2 

;  a  5 


=  J      o 


S  •  5 


c'-r: 


0      Jg^Srt^ 


t-—      t- 


C3k 


a  i  ®  3     — 


«    C«    - 


:-?  "■    -rl:;  ? 


S  e  ca 


S  -r.  cs  J 


-=  --i 

«x 

-      ;=-£.=  gs  = 

fc=    >> 

-i  a 

=r      ;.=  j;5.2c3 

e  3  ^,"3  .■'.-.  -3  0  ■" 

-'A 

.^Tt 

S5.i:.--c-£ 

•^  !*-t    ^    ''■ 

—  c  i:-3  o-r:—  ^^ 

a  "  -'  - 

2^ 

o'3 

0  take 
above  c 
sine  as  p 
0  conclu 
explain 
17U4,\vit 
0  couclii 
Article 
Britain, 

H     H 

H 

H     mH        H 

■-'•'a  i*  2 
^^ 

«."  *"'3 

-3  'St 
-3  >,^  <" 

^3  =  ^ 

=  ■=  cs 
rasa 
r  3  o 
"  c  o  _ 
s—  -.a 
H     H 


K  r  a  *' 

s-q     . 

o       a;  ■" 

rz  ^  ^ 

-  ^.  5  "ti 

1  fc-'S  to 

I  =_='/:  a 

fe   3  «'-3 

«a5  „ 
a  3"^  ® 

'a—  cC 


I  ''  2 

—  ^  3     -« 

s  a  .     .-zs 

n  t;  i'  ^  ■"  1' 

r;  ^-  2;  «  tS  s 


a  2l-a'a-5  ^ 

a   O   y   3^  4>  -   , 

f  ,  i  e.  a  -s  =  ■- 
tt  E      ®  a 

a  _  o  uj  tj  3 

o  c  a-"  i  £■ 
—  ja-r  ®  i.-5 

^^^  J:<„  =. 

"  =  3  =  -  _ . 

art-  >.  - 


J.  g  £  2 


^  _  to      J 

O    D    '/.    3    .     c, 

■'«  ^— '  s  -  ^  * 

.S§=.Sgi.3 

|5|l'f-l 


-  i;  r  rt  -  ■:; . 
J.=  ?  S  5  S. 


>.a 


fl       a 


Ch      &i 


3  w 
'3   -^ 

!'a 

;?5 


t:  ; 


2  ^  .5  ?.a  ^     •"    . 
;H  3, 3.  y  —  2     "H  >. 


c-.a.|3|.|     .ij 


a      a  3 
«      c  i- 


CJCl 

c;  Ci 


"      3 
-3     "S 


a  V 


.-13' 


y 


<SS 


3i3  ; 

"? 

'H  0 '"'    * 

3 

oa^-^2 

iJ 

-rs^a 

W 

5  «  •-«  » 

U 

|=St2 

0 

•-i"  rt  3 

^PJ-^S^ 

■— s 

CI 


IS" 


.  a       3 

§  3 


aUl 

S    7> 


>5         'S     ^ 


??     ~ 


c     a 

2  ^ 


•;^         ;^        ht     ;^        ;:q     .-a 


id 

3 

n 

< 

r 

a 

.a 

a 

0 

n 

•■s 

^ 

a 


a.        A 


'^     a 

II 


.2      s  C'5^ 


to  "^ 

"  c'' 


•Ja-.j'J^S' 


..=  .3  e.aO"^ 
—  o  «—    .    . 


112 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


s 


3 


13 

V 
3 

_a 
'-3 

s 
o 


Q 
-0 


a 

P4 


a,' 


2«3 


ft  a,. 


5.S 

O  0) 

^5 


«.2      «. 


a  :  o  r  - 
as 


la 
'=5  ^ 


;s  as;=  =..S3  i.    ~  a. 


s  s  a  ij 


3  2 


■-  a 


I;  a 


e  -: 


O       ? 


it. 

a 


*5S  -a   '"^ 
H  H 


05  .^         m  ^3 

a  30       a  M 
o  3        c  a   ,, 


^'^ 


—  ^ 


a       a  ^00 

«-i         -  r  ^ 

c        =  -0" 


i  "•  c  = 

ijo  °  "  " 

;  "-.a  «  t  ♦- 

a  .S  H  S  ^ 

c  ?  e  »  ♦^ 


S  '■' 

**  a  ' 


V   w    n   *<   I 


•aO^ 


a 
.2  2 


f£i 


» 


a-J' 
'a  o  ' 


a  o 


t.  = 


V5  -"^  .«-» 

u      a  2      o 

•S     ;=  .a.    .a. 


s 


R  w       ^       Z 
O       O  :, 

fists',   q.   " 


H 


t«     W 


a  a  o.S  o,5  e 


>.s 


•^         r; 


^-  u         ,:z 


^=1 


H 


O 


(C  X  ■ 


» 


.s      =* 

a        --' 

"c  w  .3 

a  a   -^ 

^2  s^ 


fc  S  J  2  o 
a  a  a  -J  • 
J5       O  ; 


r»3 

;=.£■? 

£  i  » 

■"     a 
X  t-  3 

>•—  ♦J 
o'.S  = 

i:  a  3 


» 


■  ^        CJ  «  o 

:^    '3  Si  ° 

■—  .a  ~=-' 
:_«      —  «P 

^  a  ®  i*  o  ^ 

>  ^'TiS  -"~ 
1  S  -^  *3  .a "" 
;  S  a  ^  5  * 
,t:  a  *  2  — 


?>  o 


-  a. 
•s  o 


■5-?=.':.-.-~-I. 


^V.^v.^-^'z 


.si 

es  u 

•^  ?'^  9 

-  9  «  a 
a  o  o  5 

£  ■^  >«  .U 


o  «  3 


3  *-  _— ^  +i<  O 


.-  ^  -3  EC  j-  :.- 


:«-s5g« 


a  p=  «     J 
5  05  ■.-,'S  ■" 


'^;  ■  ■  a  -S  2  a; 


;gS§a"ogg52go 


•3  «  o. 


I  coo  o  I- 
»-*-r^  o  a  o 


o 

-3 


-§    3 


o 

CO 


;^ 


a 


C 
a 


o 

o 


w 


is       E= 


a^o_^^  "T^       rr* 


1-1       c. 
CI        r-i 


CI        C-1 


•^ 


ti5     <J 


a 
K 


•2      s.a 

O         OS 

.?•   ;sa-J 

a     ^  a  ; 

aj2=.a 
■_  a  H  t«*. 


a 
o 

u 


^  ■*  a 

«  s  5 


-  c  2 


-  «  :5 


a     « 


5=-  = 


C3 
9 

3 

3 

a 
H 


0~-.3 
5  2^ 
"23 

®  a—  • 
2  ■ ,  a  *- 
~  -^  n:::: 

sr-i-5 

o  "  ■«  a  , 
H  f. 


n 
w 

00 


s     1- 

a 

3         »; 

3 

3 

s 

a 

e     « 

n 

?    -a 

ji 

5       c3 

t»i 

J    J 

U         u 

a 

>t.  « 

« 

S.  i\ 

li 

THE    FISHERIES    TREATY, 


113 


k      a  ^  a  ^ 

.2     *  .5  ^  .2 

ii     SSi;  ^  i; 

O        a   =  a  S3 

a     ^-3  2  CS 

«  -J  S   •-  •«  C   i 

—^  t-  —35  -  •'- 


«.a 


1^  li:- 


Wa 


»<  r 


a  ><  ir  -S 


5-    ' 


S5    w 


2      =2      =2 

a      '^a      C'3 

-     «  *•     2  — 

•^  ■_   O   a  "^  3  3'^'^ 

i5aS2SS3 


.  a 
'  i> 

o 

a. 


SB'S 


9^      5-1 


i*  *!^ 


«>.  >•=  = 


'J 


C3 
u 

a? 
a.>. 


,§•9 
E3 


i  a 


a  —  41 

a  :  S 
a  w  o 


>^ 


£? 

a 


o      * 

t  .-2 

?  -r.'r. 

"Els'-; 

Ill 

1^1 


a. 2 


i_a 
~5 


ai 


o 


a 


--  «-i 

aca 

'a  O 


a  -^ 

a   , 

i  « 

a 
I-  a 

'a  9 


ta  '''3 


-5  =  a  S-5 


4J  -  —      *-  r  -^  ,i'n 


»  > 

^^i 


—      i"^  a      i 


«  a 
f  5 


Sir-" 


a.  s 
-.  J 
^  .-CJ 

*"  ~  J 


s  a  S 


3 


i;  •  2.3  ^ 


j«5 


a 

9 

3       ^ 


a 
H 


5?ift    2 

5  -*  a—  3 
a  o    -«" 

".i  2  s  ■: 

o  •^•-  a  o 


o.o      § 


S    X    K    D 

-aa  ii 

III  a 

?  "^  I 


K    -V.    >, 


a 


i„ i - = a 

a-'  °  a 

*C  -(  i  c; 

■^  k"5  a  3  ^ 

■r:5.2i3 
a  i:  S  a 

»  d  i  'S  3  O 

5a?;-:-"^'3 

«  »  2  « 

y       a-a  I  a 

u  2  3  a 

2  71  3  a  •,  a 

a  2  A  a 

T.i  a  s  s,  a 

0  o  ^  a 

«   0  J  u 

1.  *J  V  -  -  o 

0  a-w  o 

H 

H          H 

«  i'2  a 

a  s  =  c 


—  X  •  a 


03 


Si 

*- 1' 

a  a 


a.  u 


«W      a      ^=      ia 


IS 


.a  9 

a  J 


c  a . 
*j'a 

a  :c 
«,  a 

3    X 


*^    :?    -*         .-  "5  «•    3 


o 


5  S  »  a 

;    N    5  a 


o      o 


s 

13 


o 


-a      -s      "3 


ti 

a'-  a.- 

a  a  a 

o  N  a 


.a  a 

i  a 


^a 
a  .2 

4v  -t  a 

«■>  .2 

«■  c  s 

■t:  a  * 

'   C5 


a 

a 

> 

a 

a 

a 

a 

n 

B^ 

f 

a. 

a 

•J 

"^ 

a 

5-iS 

4^ 

'H 

~ 

a 

:  .  a  ■ 

-   3   ~S 


a.?£ 
<^  a  *- 

C  5  a 

C'a.'; 


.i  2  a 

a  a  ■: 

I"  J' 


"'•^.a       a 


" 2t  i  #^ 

a  -  s  a  B  .,    . 
a-  i,  ^-.:  a 


u_  a:  "'. 
«■  a  —  _  is  a 
a.  I.  »^  ^  a 

.3  3  a  -r  a.  - 

i  *  S  *  a  a 
3  a  -      r  a 

'i:it!  =  a 

a'  •  ~  'C  "*  '^ 

a  5  o  "  >"  3 
£.=  3  a^-.x 

a.-r  a  a  "a  a 

:   5~  «  t  ^ 

V  3  a  .S  X  a 

Jbx-3^S 


;'i^;i 


^         S  ii~  a  .     a 


if  -  2 . 


UD 


a 


i;2^:^ii.=-f  ^ 


.2  a  3  a 
H 


a.t;  '  *' 
a  -  a  C 

_      og.2  9 
a  a*-  a  -  a 


.S2  = 


a  ^  T  " 

~  15  ?  o  «  a 


§?s-5aa 

a  3  a  K  •=  £; 

-s  >-.«  ,:  . 
a  =*'  a  « 
a.?-^  a  3 

a|2^« 

£  a  a  ^a 

S  — —  3  * 
a  f»  w  "^  a 

a  «  >ix  a 
"tw  «  « 

a  a '-3^3  .a 


» 


a 


o 


o 
-3 


e 


ci         &i 


n 

?5 

n 

n 

C" 

■^ 

a 

o 

o 

Ift 

in 

lA 

<o 

to 

«o 

C4 

ff^ 

s 

!« 

71 

!M 

X 

00 

00 

00 

00 

UC 

oo 

r-( 

•-H 

*-^ 

•-» 

f-H 

w 

!:> 

a> 

cs 

« 

in 

^ 

"t 

t~ 

»fi 

CI 

^ 

t~ 

O 

f— f 

CI 

3^1 

Ti 

»-( 

s 

t-( 

r-i 

^H 

1^ 

-^ 

> 

• 

k. 

h 

t^ 

-W 

c 

>-, 

>; 

0 
1^1 

o 

^ 

Q< 

a 

0. 

rt 

a 

P4 

o 

a. 

a 

A 

ifl 

;«i 

< 

^ 

^ 

< 

a 

1:3 

r^ 

'A 

<1 

>5 

:3 

^       3 

■3      tJ 


a 
.a 
a 


W3 


«      « 


a 
"53 


S.  Mis.  109 8 


a 

:« 

j> 

p^ 

^ 

^ 

a 

l^ 

r— 

o 

-d 

c 

«! 

« 

» 

Pi 

1 

3 

0 

£ 

i2 

00 

a 

.a 

03 

a 

I-? 

;^< 

•^ 

u 

5    w 

"S     '?     K 


a 

.3 

a 
P5 


a 

"5. 
p. 
< 


a 
a 
i-s 

a 

o 

•-3 


a 

o 
» 

a 
a 


•d     5 

I  I 

M     W 


a 
CS 

a 
.a 


•3    . 

.  a 

si 


114 


THE    FISHKIilES    TREATY. 


§1 

s  a 

:  u 
""a.   • 
S       = 

•/.  a 

u  =  0=55 
—  3^  >  -  a 
jj-a  a  a  - 


Ml     "9 

1 ; 


■a 


a 


a 


•5 
3. 


2     .2 


2.2|^SSaV      as 


ill 


,"  J"  H  ~  •-  X  "-  a 

•3  -9  ::•  ^it^'d^t? 

L'  ct  Z  ^■aOt='~>v 

J  J3  ti  a=-aa-S^ 

U  U  uS  C4        M         aiS 


2     ^ 

J3 


3        = 
i.  s  X 

■  =  0  s' 

a  ^  a 


ill 


3        £  ' 


«  S  . 


aSa 


H 


.2  ^  - 

^"1 


^i2 


I 


-0 


-a 
a 
a 
a 
'•S 
a 
o 

y 

I 
u 

M 
Q 

S 
-«5 


I    -H. 

8     5  >> 

a  a  I  * 

*"  5  i  rt 

y  a  ^  s 

.X*-  * 

o  ♦-  o  u 

H     ri 


Hi 

2  -   'X 

.a  -  ^ 


a     .;J' 


?i  a  .. 


i'  >  ^  > 


"2 
S 


a      Si^" 


a    a    i_: 


2'a*=5 
",  a  u 


(3 

O 

u 

o 
H 


§§a 

U    u   3 


J2d3  . 
a  =  N  i  a 

a  ^  C3  ® 
^        4; 

'3-r^'a  J 
a 3.-  a.s 

g§a9a 

a  3  w  o  'S 
H     H 


3     3 
a'«  " 

4;    <    5j 

'Era 
%- .^  I. 
Ci  s 

_a 

n.t;  a 

$  !i  a    . 

*'  -  a 
•>.  a  _  -3 
o  =  o5 
>-.ti  >.'C 

*  r  1*  ■»-» 

,  a  ^  t. 

=  *^ - 

"^  s<"5  '^ 

—  "*  a 
5  ^  o  a 

3  i  -.2 

o  a  o« 
H     H 


]:■  = 


a 
« 

a 

i 


:s     -s 


-  -  s    . 


•r  a 

IS  rt 
t-  r 

la  . 


a -3 
c  a 

of 


£■3^'= -a  .3 
*"  "  ",3— a 

U   U   4j 

a  a  I. 

o  o  a 
i)  u  3 

o  o  « 


1-    . 

a  '-> 

Sin 
^■a 

^  *^ 


> 

ca 

a 

■a 
a 

cs 


^0 


-a 
a 


«  a      a 
•s'5     *" 

-I     i? 


a 

a 

a 

3 


U  ti   u  Is 

t3  -,  a  „ 

03  =  9 

H     H 


«  i* 
a  -( 

=  a 


•a-a-r  <; 


—5    ^r    ^— ^a 

oa       «#      as  a" 


a!=j 

0  a  o  — 

".3  '^'' 
o'"  o 


a 


a 

o 


g  so 

;:;  .s*  >*  . 
fe  «.  _  >< 

K  t.  2  a 

s»a 

^••=•5  a 

5'=  o  5 


C8 

a 


a 
■a 


o  o 

'S-3 


000 
■a     -3     -a 


o 
-a 


o  o 

■a -a 


o  o 

•a         -a 


a 


•a 
a  w 

•^  a 


00       00 
S      53 


??l 


a 


a 
a 


>  > 
3  3 


s 


s 


-J     ^ 

O     P 


a  a         a 
n  a         3 


o        — 


a 
a 
1-5 


a 


d 
a 


A 
<l 
so 

a 

d 
3 


« 

_a 

'S 
Pk 

PJ 

V 

o 


I     ^ 

cs    -a 
»      a 


aO 


&    I 

d     5 

P5     l> 


o 

a 
H 


13 


a 
o 


.2 
3 


3 
o 
,a 


a     '-' 

I      & 


M     ►^ 


a 
^ 


« 


g 

eg 


;a      w 


a  ci 

a 

a 
-a 


a 


a 
>-) 


a 
o 


3 

m 

d 


d 
■3 


■9    M 


S 


a 


THE    FIftllKRIES    TREATY. 


115 


v.«v 

'^      •              1 

1 

e 
e 

k 

E 
C 

■ 

• 

1     :        ; 

S      : 

s     :       '• 

S      ' 

3       *          • 

=      ; 

5    ;      i 

5      ; 

-J      1 

•0-3           -3 

C 

o 

C 

O 

O 

3      e 

O 

3 

0 

0 

3 

C 

O 

o 

■3 

-3       - 

13 

S      -3 

■s 

■3 

-3            -3       -3       - 

I  s 


O         — '        -- 


00 


JJ        «       CO 

!>£      oS      00 


t»       O 


♦J      ♦J      »^       3 

O     O     !*     ^ 


s 

11 


7)      --1 


•-^  1 1 


a 


3       S 


3 


a  •  J: 


a 


1  ^ 


a 
o 

J3 


a      S 
i1     S5 


0) 


a, 


a 
s 

.■9 

O 
>-5 


a 
o 


A 
fe 


d 

a 


£ 

3 

.9 


o 


s^ 


o 


-3 
6^ 


>) 

> 

« 

^ 

a 

o 

'3 

3 

tc 

:< 

.j^ 

^    Es 


<s 
S 


'? 

> 

3 

P 

■3 

d 

h 

•P 

al 

is 

tc 

S? 

-3 

J3 

;^ 

■«) 

u 

116 


THK    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


v 

S 

.3 

a 
o 


M 

M 

Hi 


THE    FiyUKUIKiS    TUEATY, 


117 


".^ 


s.a 


3.2 


i?      ^ 


t-=     r:-  = 

^ -rf  2a.  1^ 

,     *  3  ,    ^-  ZS 


s  -   .  *  - 


li 


He 


.  =  =  i,       r-    •= 


>  a  O  > 


•e       "s 


a  3  *»  a  B  •^ 


.E:4 


S    ;S5.     i 


i     ?~ 


J3      54 


3     2     C  a 


;-\2  >; 


.  ''  ^.3 


55  ets-; 


'a  •:  = 


1^^ 


.;,<4: 


"  r  „  ^.■• 


=  -  -.     e 


*.3 


ta     't:  2  a. : 


'^—  >. 


2p.=  -      =23   i'S'^lix     t     i^i.2     i       " 


t  i  i 


2  3  >.-i^ 


a  1 


O     W 


I  S  T  ;■  a 


S~ 


J^3-. 


'/     o 


a -J 


•ia 


Sc 


S  s     "t      .« y  §    .«    .1'  ^  r 


s  >.     « 


ft  3 


•  5  »        R 


-  a  it- 


n  a 


a  Sx 


iT.J^Oi 


V-     ^• 


s  «  Jr;         -a 


a  — 


J'>.=  ^     .= 


.s  s 


5M- 


a^  a 


t;  _  u  s 


=  i-  «  9  a 


s    III 


o  j: 


t^"  2 


-     >.'r.i 


p  a  ct 

'-HsC''  a 
0  -  o  ■=  - 


ts 


"  a-/-  3  jf  5  ,.  ; 

L-  >  ~  «  r 

*"  a  .t:  i  ~ 

U  1-    **  -     -1    (?^ 


i:'    ^.aijta-s 


12!^ 


T  W  !•  3     '9      a 


2  3 

X   Ji    3;   uS 


a      s. 


a  2  a 


o-=  2     -  r  i; 


i-S  3«» 


*.■  '' 


«  t-J  5 


a  a  -■  ?j  i-  3  i. 
■w  3  5  -  !«  M  — 


z  3  .£  i"  = 


iB,'i«S     2 


!r.=  « 


?--      a 


C'^a 


t»  i  «  -• 


flip's   i-ij^-oSt;  — 


■5      «  ^  2 


i;S    ♦■-    i'iTiCs 


*-  is  L   I;  ^ 


aX 


iS  3 


i,'^      s-cj."      e  _  ■^  a  Ji    '  i-" 


4§  ■^::  i=3 


litj 


1)  1,  e  u  u  : 


'a-e 


n  3-^  "  ic 


rr 'h^        T! 'iT        T"    —  •^'ij'tt        7^    fc    L..  rt  "^  T*  "T"  V     ,5  *i 


£|t     |a=J|''.||^ 


*      a  f  -  a  ^      c 

'  i'-r  a  S  i 

-  o  2  c  «  : 

-s-     C          3-      3  :  3  -  c  a  3  a  3X  -  i;^  3^^ - 
U^     H         HHHHH             r-         H         H 

a  -^  -  V 
Hri 

c 

do 

do 

do 

•5     -5 

_3      ^        ,2.2.£ 

_3     _e 

do 

do  .    -_   

^ 

_a  3 

US 


X        a)  X  X  X      00      * 


—  CC  X  M 


Si'  t.p' 


I 


^    ^     ^  M  M 

-ij<;S     ^     I-, 


sa 


0      w 


R 


n 


.-  «ja     -a 


^:s 


o 


o« 2    <) 


OS5^5 


-ta 


SS       J3 


>-i"i" 
«  "^ 


a-i . 


O 


a      S 


°'Z^         3         =5 


ft    rW 


.3  2 


fc  a 


>it^ 


118 


THE    KIHIIKHIKH    TRKATY. 


^ 


.2   ^  "  .i 

•  0     ^  >.o 


rt  «       fl  fl 


r.  a 


•«  t-. 


31 


■s   t- 


a^  IS.  :9a 


e   t 


M     3 


.EE.! 


;j.      •-oil      2Ji      5J:      5      ™      ok-S     v 


U    3 


OW 


H 


M 


U     U     M 


rl 


3^ 


•-a  •'^ 

**  "2  ■»-  "t-         ijj 


o 


o         ar:     ^  a 


tp  « 


-  0 


a     Ji 


I.     £  u 


i2  a 


a      Ec:    ga 
iM      <«  a    Sv. 


S5Si: 


«!  -O 


0   CS    V 


*        *-'. 


rt.S 


E? 


t-tt' 


•  -  *  i  - 


i-.Z    s 


r,i^<  7,~." 


5  « 


■Sojfa   ^.?   ^.=    = 


§  «  g 


H     H 


?S      oa      oca      cao*"S"cis 


HH 


H     H     H 


;.a*    «i 

• ;;.  a   .y 

~  -  "    ^  ■ 


141     *^ 


?y   g?    > 


^  i  i  o  /•  a 

^  d  f  I..C  3 


«  c« 


~      « 


E—       a-3«       :£C3  30.03'= 


a-  9  ^ 

s  s-s--  o  g 

o  u  a  a  u  o 


H         HH 


«  =  5 


-^— '>'.~a    ~       ■=■!:-? 


a  5 


n 


Iri   P. 


2    £t!  i    -5' 


a-a 


S    a's    ?      a    's   .i; 


a     3  n  I 


t;  J^  >•  ° 

■U1--  ~  ~ 


o=. 


Q  (t  'i^ 


;.o  o  n  , 


'^       I      «  *       3  S  fx  00  aC       3       S  7  **  3  *  X       «       oC 


i  a 


0>  ^H  1-t 


^ 


«  M 


M  I-        O         t-. 


1-1  —  iri 


rf 


>2ia 


s 


S  <9 


j;.  >i  M      it       . 


3        e        o 

^    1)    (5 


s 


s       ^     =       S 


•<)    O 


^ 


S  c 


•s 


—  >cr"  S      «      ■- 


p5 


n 


^    ^ 


^00 


I        2, 


a  V 


a 


o 


£ 


a     ^   M 


w   ^ 


>,     -fl    § 


IS        a 


w 


,s    S 


Es      ^   £s   w 


T 1 1  K    1'  I H 1 1  !•; U I  KM    'I' l{ i:  A  r  Y . 


119 


i  ?. 


'■  w 


* 


'tj  z- 


l«  I. 

a -2     i' 

Tf^  1- 

•n  c  a  " 

I «  '1, 1.  e 
;  2  u  i  ■£ 

2  It  £  c  — 
■^  ,1-  iK  ce  o 


-  IJ !..  .- 


» 


§ 


120 


THE    FISHERIES   TREATY. 


« 
a 
_o 
-*- 
a 
o 
o 

I 

o 

X 

M 

cu 
cu 
-< 


9 

5.2 

1 1 

5  rt 

i 

2-- 

ll) 

f 

ei 

c 

1^ 

« 

-M 

SiJ 

■*^ 

»«- 

c 

^  ^ 

Pi 

■"  >m' 

«» 

tg 

ca 

a     g* 

o 

-£ 

p-« 

V.O 

o 

t».  a 

1! 

''a 
go 

6 

s 

s      S  5 
1     I'a 

a   . 

'Cxi 
K  b  a 

c 
r 

re  t; 

1'^ 

§■ 

^2 

<•- 
o 

f  Jl 

r 
>< 

'     a 

c 

1: 

=• 

afl 
.2  ~ 

_^ 

O 

S 

1 

t^  a* 

Other  offi 

e 
pi 

c 

J 

■r 
c 

et 

is  K 
■■'a<5  o 

ill 

O 

> 
I 
a 

?  S  -" 

K  O 

la 

c  « 
c  "- 
U 

a 
re 

o  '-■ 

'ill 

3 

tlst 

a 

.1 

> 

=  a 

C  w 

re  X 

a  = 

c  — 

1     1 
s       _ 

a     — 

4 

c 

c 

si 

;  a 

.9 

re      h 
tt      1/ 

1      if 

s     .= 

a     '^ 

5. 

< 

.a 

J 

1  = 

"?  re 

a  *" 
re  re 

a  c^ 

3 

C5  rt 

*J 

re     ^ 

2 

r 

+- 

- 

s 

o 

2.5 

a 

a 

e 

ti 

a     <= 

Z 

'SI 

.2   . 

'if? 

; 

1 

■♦-' 
re 

71 

o 

:1 

fe 

a  a 

Ci'"" 

s 

k-'S 

~ 

SO 

'^  1^ 

i? 

s     1 

> 

.^  "^ 

CJ    Iw 

ti'-'i 

c 

-5 

V 

c 

a, 

Is 

~  *  a 
W  a  i 

ET 

3 

e 

s 

ff3 

c« 

•a 
a 
re 

9. 

=1 

^1 

it 

-• 

3j 

•• 

Is  ^-3 

ill 

c 
c 

w 

*> 
^ 

> 
c 

Oi 

■«-  e 

K 
£ 

■^ 

i 
^ 

s 

i 

03'- 

0! 

.  Stir  re  ^ 

|re' 

p| 

sis'? 

S 

■^  re 
re  — 
s  - 
n  a 

a  re  L 
©  ©  rt  "^ 

•l"    ^ 

e. 

i 

Ci^ 

e  ** 

& 

■^ 

o 

00   . 

St 

1 

X 

a 

*-'  1 

^ 

S  Jj 

^   <C  '^ 

c 

43 

-^ 

_£ 

^  w 

*"  ** 

-d 

o 

nfi 

-nr^ 

a 

>. 

'^ 

^ 

■-^  S 

Q'C     t*-. 

■5'? 

it 

1 

0. 

c^- 

a«  f*"^ 

a 

■I 

■n 

a 

'z^'o 

T 

r'    v' 

00 

t 

a  a 

S  3  re  = 

5  (» 

c 

3 
^ 

w 

s 

5  3 

c 
£ 

J 

a  5 

§1 

^ 

0  - 

a  a 
5  C 

c 

-  a 

a  oi  = 

5ao  ^ 

^t 

=  a  -,  a 
a  9^3 

c  * 

c 

-S 

c« 

5/^  c 

*-  e 

c3 

c 

♦-)  ; 

*« 

o  c 

'-  c  -*-■ 

c 

*-  o 

—  * 

!j  c  S-: 

H 

ii 

H 

r- 

r 

H 

C" 

r 

r-r-i 

H 

ir 

t-l 

r- 

" 

B 

i 

MB 

;  .' 

c 

3 

"a 

:  ! 

>J 

0) 

1  j 

a 

c 

1 

1 

N 

b 

!    1 

& 

c; 

il 

"Zt 

c. 

;    1 

t£ 

u 

d 

1 

_c 

^S_>j 

3 

"'■ 

r. 

/2 

'5 

;    ; 

S 

^ 

.1^    (. 

S 

M 

1    1 

^"  i 

i.  s 

: ; 

X 

^> 

:  • 

y 

■ 

J  J 

>«»-V^.i* 

1 

; 

\  '• 

1 

pQ 

' 

1     1 

1 

^ 

■*i 

; 

;    ; 

; 

>> 

' 

*    ' 

pa 

^ 

s 

2 

_c 

; 

c 

; 

c  c 

o 

o 

* 

_o 

o 

s 
* 

£ 

15 

~ 

'C 

'^"^ 

"^ 

"3 

"i 

-c 

\ 

;    : 

; 

_x 

3 

CO 

O 

c 

tr 

t- 

l^ 

r- 

cc  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

00 

00 

-B 

s 

2 

3 

s 

s 

s 

a 

-xoo 

s 

1 

s 

3 

2 

s 

C  C 

•-H 

•— 

^—  •-• 

».^ 

^H 

£o 

cT 

QO' 

o" 

a 

b- 

cc 

a 

IC^" 

sf 

IT 

cc" 

e^ 

ri" 

t-' 

^1 

IM 

ro 

CJ 

c^ 

e- 

M 

r-t 

(25 

IS 

H 

-< 

> 

r 

s 
►; 

0 

s 
^ 

^ 

J 

; 

: 

i  i 

/^A^ 

% 

1 

* 

^ 

■  • 

* 

c 

; 

:-i 

^ 

m 

4) 

i 

a 

1 

s 

< 
C 

c 

1 

;  a 

;  a 

•  re 
B.a 

i     'J 

o  ^ 

S  ? 

1 

3 

B 

re 

'     1 

s 

0 

a 

•J 

E 

3 

a 

a 

1 

a 

(2 

'5 

5  s 

< 

c 

i 

1 

a 

> 

^ 

^ 

1 

■< 

^ 

^ 

i^ 

i  re 

re 

S 

1 

P 

► 

THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


.121 


o 

a 


£ 


Z-::  az 


^  '^  z, 
3J«  « 


IS    • 
M       >■ 

bt?;       > 
q 

W 


3 


M  b' J= 

^^ ^U  -J 


s "      >.  a      >■.  c 

»  a     ii-i     =£  « 

.s'"     =2     =5  5 

e  u  it 


!  SB'S    r"^    H^?"'5 


_e 
r. 


J3  - 


;  3      0 


-'  ^  r 


'^     -j: 


^   a 


k; 


>     3.     S  s 

1     ^i?     -a 


«.  3 


ee  a 
.^  a 

_a  CO 
I*  t8  a 

c  H^s 
«  o  a 
o  u  d 
H 


o 


a 

c 
a 
s 


V 

u 

o 

■fl 


rS  a 
a  c; 

"3  2 

i| 

o 


—   -  58 


£=■5 


=  ;  =!  ^ 

« "^  a  *^ 

Z  ^  B  a 


—     -S ' .  n  t-     a 


'-      S  =  j'  a      S 

i  .S  5  -*  a  -^  a 
=  i=  =  r  a  S  3 
-  a  _  X  c  (.      a 

c  5.^  j-  a  a  (.H    . 


ii  «       Si 


a      a  a  v  c  a  i 


=  ■3 


a     ~  *  ■- 


a""      a  Z 
9  ~     .?  i 


C  °  5  s 


-■••  ~.9 

'V—  a  ~ 
3  — ''I  a. 


5r  flo  g 
Ca  a 

=  a     ■ 
^.;  a 


-w         OB 


C3 


a,  1-  -^ 


-'S        G 


u—  ■= 


a  =  -.  ■-     -S-r  -      '      ?- 
B  :,■='='      >.  5=  >•      9      r 


b-r?S    -so    So, 


.5  »  u  j 
B  i-  i,  „ 


r.     .•  .  U  ■ 


«  =  -—=*='  "— i:=^ 

Tli'u^'o'u      "err      'o'^-r^  ^-"^  *■ 


a    .  '^  T**  a 
>  ^  a  ^ ••-  ax 


■=  i:  ^  =  ' 

3;  a  c  X 

5  -  •=  'S 
J-  _-  ~-r. 


2  K  a 

=  53 


.~o  it; 


c  aj=  a 
c  j5  S 

^         -  *  ?  3^ 


-. fjaroo     oa     ^t^'    2: 
H     H     c-iH     H         H         C 


-  =  "rt-c3a5 

9il.S->  =  =  ? 

aSj«a»- 

«     a  a  a  -  >  o 


a.  a    _'a 


■"  a  o 


c 

-  =  •-  it's 
a*^=«5cs 


£  2- 

a  a  © 

c  r  > 
■~  -'  a 

•3  O  O 

a  1^50 


F^cg— k—  :;a»    •—  F*'*^^a*' 


3 


_  _  c  -  a 

e  i  -  £  5 


>. »  2  is  "3 

"  t  o  a  9 


■Jt3.a 

rt  cs  rt 

O   £   O 
11 


u  u  o 
a  a  a 
o  a  o 
o  a  o 
o  :  o 
HHH 


t^  3  Ji 

a  a  5  tt 

—  n      a 

r  a  5K 
il=  "  O 

—  *■  p—  ■♦-* 

s—  s  a 
£.-  a.  a 


c      c  a 
-a     T3-3 


a 


2a 

it  r 

?:-a 


c  o  a  o 


X  00 


■S  a. 


m 

e> 

o>ei 

e» 

5 

« 

Xoo 

5 

— 

-^ 

n 

oo" 

« Ifi" 

ffl" 

V 

« 

a 

i'c 

3 

a  jj 

1-^ 

t-^ 

^-; 

-<3 

3 


r/) 


S 


—    -^    — 


-H        1-5 


3. 


s 


a     ^'X'  a  -a 
a      =3«» 


i-ji 

<s   : 

O    T. 

a  a 

5.2 
S  a 

^r. 

2:2' 

it« 

fe-? 

feo 

x<.:2 

.a    . 

OPS 

oa 

a' 


a 
a 

5 


—  a 

o« 


a 


J3 


K 


^ 


O 


5 


•^      *     r^ 


A 

B 

s 
.a 
H 


o        S 


a 


a 

X 

a  :  ;  t. 

2 

2      :£ 

Ph" 

tc 

1- 
S 
O 

John 
John 

122 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


o 

9 


O 
& 

04 


V 

9 

.5 

a 
o 
o 

I 
o 

M 
S 


P 


o 


■d 
S- 

-I 

eg 


^ 


%^ 


—   7) 

'S^  "  -a 

^  a      n 
vD .-  .1,  q 

«Scf2 
u    o 


~  a,    M 


a 

S'S 
'a  a 


-3  ^ 

is  ^ 

a  o 


-2      c2  H 


is 


3 

a 

5  a 

'  o 
O 


2 


U     CO 


(§ 


■=  ?•  2 


c 

Or 


O 

a, 


■:  a 


O     35 


if 

o  a 
OP4 


as 

II 

5  3 


o  to 


SI 


g    11^^ 


I" 

g§ 

a  = 
rt  i: 

w  S 

5.S 


■d 
a 


5     "        S    .2-a  5  g 

3     <a  3      k      -.2 


»  e  c 

t-  w  ts 

l-aa 
at;  -^ 

o:5  a 

■e  a- 


2  fc 


.2  fe 


o 


Jj  «  2  « 


o 
-a 


a  ?£ 


a.    —     fc.  > 

,3      a  cs.3  "      a      aj  a 
1   .=.^5«     .2     tj 


o  a 
MS 

a  •* 

a 
o  ? 
*^  ^ 

a    -  ^ 

li  ^  00        — 

:^2^«a5 


^  s  0--.5  » 
o'^  »  a      ca 

■S  r  J?  =;  2  2 
u  ^  a  —  ~ .. 

i3  a  sr  a-- 


p 

o 


te.s 


og:ic«b«feuu 
a  "  a  itgZ'S  a 

"aSSag^S 
o  !8  o  S'3--^  a 
H     H  H 


a 

t  a 

5- 
y . 

t.  = 

5-5 

"  a. 
d  * 

a  *^ 

a  a;  -J 

H 


o 


o 


o 
■d 


o     _o 

-3       •« 


o 


ys  s 


OS 


->1 


-11 


CO 

(».      bio 

*      a 


o  a 
XI  a 
■«-  St 

'2  = 

'£- 

S5 

if 


=s!a 

♦*  a< 

^M 

a  a 

"3  S 
a  ,^ 

S  a 

o  in 

H 


0.  t-      a 


S  a  a 

§B  I 

'■■^  a 

5>2  -3 


«-a       ;r: 


a  3 

i:  a" 
3-2 
■3  15 


S  "" 

■5  a 

^P 
■C  S 
i^ 
p  ■- 

a  M 
IS  c 


a  =«_ 

5  s-  ^  «  - 

5  3  ♦^  ^ 


S.a? 


:C? 


a  X  -^  ■- 


a  MX  " 

e  a—  5 
h         c-i 


=     a  1 


§P  s 


a  a 
p^  .. 
-  a  2 

o  C3^ 
H 


-':    a  x_ 
Sir" .2  3 

«4  a  =  o  -g 

ii  ®  a—  9 

o  o  o.a.sa 


o 

■3 


00  00 

■3       T5  •S'3 


N 

s 

t-" 

^ 

(N 

•^ 

U 

t^ 

0, 

a 

0 

:^ 

00        lA 


a.  a. 


e 

0 

R 

-3 

W 

tt 


pq 


£3 


ii     M 


a 
c 


a 
o 


a 

u 
03 

d 
t 


0     .a 

W     ^ 
S     CM 


o 

t-5 


M 


a 


a 
O 


p 

3 
o 
O 


.0 
a 


P 

C4 

a 


M  a 

u  2 
-§■§ 


*;3         d3 


t=>       t 


%  a 


5 

3 

4J 

J 

?! 

« 

a 

^ 

W 

^ 

, 

a 

a 

P 
a 

i 

i 

0 

W 

P 

.a 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


123 


1^ 
a. 2 

■w 


-I 
•II 

?  3 


•2  2 


a  el  X  fl 

•=-■1  3  " 


V    .3S.|5i..=  i.Hi.HS    ^ 


a.cQ 


a 

.2 
"S,' 

a 


3  as 


11  1^  N     «j 
t»  -S  -  3  ►■ 


15  = 

.2 II 


■'03 


i "1  =  ■-  ZTi  o±  t-si 
•ay  S-s'J  V  =-aO  ?i 

,aSti2«^H5i 


§.s    1 

=  ^  a 
-  0  •" 
.5  SI.      « 

■Ea  2 
£  p-c'-a 

■"  -  u  - 

^-  vz~^ 


•3  >1 

i.  it 
11 


es 
If 

« 

a     ^ 

» 
a 


a 


2a 

'  a 


(»M 


O     O 


,  '-  -^  '©  ?i     '.  *  - 
S-aS  ^i-^  'j'a-ra 

a  c  ♦-'J  N  a  =  -  £ 


o  - 
ea.3 

>^a 

t-  a  3  •;; 

c  ^  ■::  '■'5 

rste 


pa 


9 


§     -5     I 

£-^£j  S3 

•-  a.555  3 
a    ?3    ^ 


o       a 
«      S 


5     9 

**  -  i 

s« 

^  a.* 

£   It  =3 

ij  a  » 
H     H 


o 


Q 


J.    =s 


o 

y 

£ 

<£) 

^( 

11 

fl 

J3 

h^ 

t; 

w 

f* 

»T> 

a 

e4 


-4^  03 

5  ^: 


•e:     !s 


u  a  s 

a  c  -w 

2  ^  » 
&.«'  = 

is"  D 


o 


a 


■fe 


oSce 


C 


c3       a> 
o     *^ 


.2  a  ■ 
a  £.t 

^|5      - 
-  S  •=  _.  « 


-£-1  f^  a 


*      - 

I    a 

5      o 


a      »■— "^ 


;S  2  1< 


b'5  ~ 


—        X 

a       * 


'  OJ   4)  ^ 


w  a  «       s 


c  * 


o  if  f=  _  ■"      ■*- 


C  a  -f 
a 


X  a-r  3     .i 


o 
H 


a 
c 

c 
H 


•=~a6-S 


C    -    3 


V.  a  J  >.,  s 

>."!;  —  o  ;=  > 

M  .^  b:  'a  "". .-: 

5  a  o—  5  c 

o  o  a  a  a  a 

5*-  c  "  ^c 


^-3    5 

„  O'fl.S 

c       -  ,  •- 

&■  2  =  £  S 

:«=5  3 


to 


e 
d 


-  ■"•    c» 


-'a      -   - 


_    5 


7.  "^ 


i  -a 


5  S  o^  ffl  S_i 
i'  a—  -—  =~ 


i*  a  =  = 


H 


H     H     H 


»  o  5 


c 


o 

T3 


II 


a'; 

o  - 
O 


cc  » 


3 


e      2      o      o 
-r     -r     -3     -S 


in      ir:      ifi 
a,      CIO      CO      00 


a 
s 

1-5 


■» 

if^ 

» 

W  — 

a 

"3 

n 
>-i-ji 

iri      1-^      fH 


u 

;J 

•^ 

t>1 

zi 

c« 

o. 

c9 

a 

s 

■«J 

IS 

a    :s 

S       3 


d 
hi 


M  B 

^  = 
a  w  c 

(L  o  Ml 

^     .  00 

t«3  3 

^  a  S 
e-gi 


■3 

a 

c« 

a 
c 

I 


■a 
w 

n 

41 

a 

c« 
i-S 


Si 


a 


a 

.a 
o 


a 

■e 

-§ 


es 

O 

5 
eg 


a 

si 


o 


a 

eS 

.a 
a 


e« 
l-s 


s 


eS      r- 

a  "^ 
5    a 


a 
o 

a 


a 


2 

e« 

a 


^ 


124 


THE    FISHERIES    FREATY. 


2 

*  5 

E 
o 


a 


S 

_a 

P 
o 
O 

I 


a 


I 

» 


B 

o 

.£3 


®  a 

^  ft 

C3 


"5  j:'   rt 

5.2     g 

«  ^       .5 


5^     S 


*  -;= 


» 


a 


'S  >-.      o  O      —  :-^ 


«.3     5 


i;     =  s    ■=  > 


.2    C.2   =/; 


>  s     >.s      a 


*     it     — . 


3  -;  2  o 


;  o. 


!•§ 


o 


a 


c 
c  *  _ 


Si.     •=  5..3  a 


-     !5| 

a. 


—  J       c  «i 


-  a>-2 
•2  ti  ;•  = 

1^  =  52 


---"    '^     -'^^gP-t 


at,      . 


-^  ;..-♦-  t.  « 


-w^^Is-Ij^" 


■^  ^  i  i  »?,j 


^'s 


i—     2  - 


-       K  fc.       K  S  n  -,.a       T.  ~  i  2  *  wr.i       »:  C      ^  - 
•J!  ^-cf^  c-  =  -  Z  =?  c'sii  i  3  X  =~  -a-  D-'a-r 


a 


a 

a 

o 


=^5 


TS  2     a 


f!^ 


O 


z      a 


r      ©      '*      "^ 


.5 -a 

•>-  iD      ?■ 

mi 


N  q  K 

^  cfl  ;^ 


c-i 


-  o  "J  = 

a  c  ^ 

°  t:  a  . 

^2  P  w 

H  H 


«      a 

a   a 


a      s 

i-5  2 

«  a  « 
;-  T  a 

ill 


a. a  a 

o  -  a 

H     H 


-3  a 
a  i£ 


.as 


a 
.a 


a  t-  a  .  a  ^ 
c  a.  c  ?:  0 .« 
-  o  u  3  -j^ 


71 


,a 

>-;  J- 

rt  a 

II 

a  - 

«-.a 


-«.»  ,a  ^ 


a 


0£ 
t^  a 


s  7 


%'Z 


tc 


•A  "Hi; 

■Z      si-a     — 
■5      I."     f 


'^     P. 


•5  ' 

-  » 

'-  a 


a  o 
o 
'^  a 

.^  it 

S3 

O  J, 


•3 


-       71        »- 


T  3     T  -J?     "o 


S  ^^ 


a 


00 


o      c 
"3      -c 


.*         h;     -«i     -. 

00  00         QC         QC' 


e      c 


a  a 
H 


2  -c 


-C    ;   ax   3 

H      r- 


H        H 


5-1  t-l 


a 


O 


a 


£      ^ 


OO         00 


tc 


o 


a       :=    w 


ir 

»r^ 

l!t 

00 

!2 

o" 

l-^ 

ifT 

CO 

"" 

^ 

Ji 

J= 

r-, 

£} 

i 

h^ 

u* 

b 

^     ^         e, 


-,        .2 
"Iks 

ft      s      ^ 


fQ 


14 


O       1-3 


»       ^ 


M 


S. 


rt  i  r 


fe  =  5:r 


o :-  ?  S 
a  '-  i   - 

3  3  r.  2 


S 


(1. 


bS 


O 


Ec 


mi 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


125 


■  sC-  5-'=-/. 


i        W 


e  1 1- 

o  2  :'■ 


a         •"  . 


«  2  .; 

o-s  = 

a-  ■■' 

f'-SH 

.— 

^^li 


m  ^  •— <  . 


sEi-' 


3 
J3 


3 

a. 


-     2 

a.     a 


v:      = 


y    -- 


•"1.1  .^     X  "w  rr^  -H 


i    -_;    i    2    » 


i;       a 
■^  z  P 


I  a  — 


;:=.»  S 


f'    U    '^ 

'a  o  a 


c4       ^ 


2.3  z;  .3 


a 
c 
3 
'J 


■-  .i  -.^  o . 

■c        a 


.=  =  a 

3  "•- 
ol-r.- 


r.   u 


» 


a  i      a  i 


a  ?     .5  2  a 

=  =      5  a  2 

S  ii      %2.  '^ 

Si  =  si  »  ^ 

«  J     ■'^  ^  fl 


M      ^ 


73 


s  = 


•3      « 
^5      ■- 


6     2 


•"    >.  > 


T.    --—    *  - 


5=     rs 


^"^       ea 


o  3 

■—  5-. 

=  O 

3  z 


X    s    J: 


CSX 


_  a 

=  5 


■S  o 


^  a 
hi  ^ 


3} 


o        =- 


2  ^  =■  S  '-^  "  »  3  t! 


c  "C  a 


0,       ®       c^  '^  ^    •-^^J^jlxi'.^r 


s  a 


SIS 

O  »   3 

H     H 


G  i'-"  a  ' 

^  'S  ^  a  ii  „ 
s  ?  3  n  =; 


'j^  a 


B   3 


C  .1^   3 


a~-  5  2     ■- 

S:=j  =  ?c   ? 

aPf^     1 

1.  :i  a  w  J  -  3j 

"3  a  "  3  ■   a"~  =  • 

o  a  r^  -C  V  "t:  2  . 

^  ^aa' — 'iJc  -^ 
3  5  rt      "^  CS  *  t^ 

H  H 


iC 


3| 


5  2 

'S  — 


.£•0 


x  S       ="      ^ 


a     j3 


.04;; 


a 


3 

•■J   . 

^  a 

^'5 


^  >.£ 


•-  a 

3  B 

H 


0-2' 

B 


!  ''a 
ra  3 
;  s  ^ 
;      ? 

'  i  a     i- ."  . 

. ""  —  *  .J^  - .' 
>  s  a  ?,i  .:i'" 
!  __  a  J-  w  - 

;  3  c  _  a  - 

.»   3   W  ?   3   X 


^    X 

^  a 

M  rt  K 
3  X  a 

if  2'^ 


.■^  jr  >    .■;;  —  3 


—  -'J  —  ;^  ..'J 

>  rt  I  -  - 

«  =  4^  5  = 

a  it  o  »  SD 

H 


3 


'A 


o     o 

rS      ri 


O        3 


o 

•3 


O        O 


O 


^ 


< 


s  s 


_>)    -s 


ift  .ff  m  M 

IN  Jl 

■S  .  .J  >) 

•^  o  a  ►? 


«  1-5 


w      ^^      *-" 


S    <] 


tc 


o 


O        ■£ 


2      H 


^ 


^    a 


W     .t: 


—        rt      t^        O        «       ^ 

<5     iJ     l>     H     Sm     1-3 


Z      X 


a     •=     — 


M 


►5    o 


o  e 

.s  .3 

ft  5 

■?  if 


(M 


pa 


126 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


as 


2 

•a 

.a 


D 
P-. 


S3 

.3 

-»^ 

o 

p 


o 

Q 
<3 


40 


a 

o 
Ss 


I 


3  J- 


.S  I. 
la 

23. 

ill 

S52 


^     3 


« 


.a    ?§ 


a    > 


2      n.5 
•  a 


ii.2 


3        w 

a     ii 


■o  a  . 


3 


*r  (^  ;j  :-       ♦r 


i-=:^^-- 


» 


a  < 


'A 


«  1, 
a 

.-8  a 
■A 


b  O  h 

i  9  - 

■JD  5  © 

5  o  a 


S        "^ 


a        s  =<    ti 


>.  a 
1  = 


-  ^ 

1.2 
l-^a 


;  3     a 


£ 


3  >.- 

a  > 
s  a 


-  ^ 

3  ■ 
^  ? 

a  >" 
*^  a 


.  fl  i;  5 

•7  -  rt 


ca     2 

X  £  ?3 

^■a^t 

^  a  2  ^ 
a  a«  ^ 

M         7: 


^  ,S*     «  B*      ^       ■**       a 

T'":     ?-r      5      «     ? 


-  -q      t-  a 

O    *         SO' 


2'H.:i  Sa    '« 


,   :!iu  .    a 

=  .=    o.a 

!-  a  »  1- 
a  s«  a 


o'a 

i 


3  2.2 


^1 


s 


a 

■X3 


a^ 


t._.3 
SI'S 

a  a  iJ 

a-i"" 

».a 


.::      » 


«  '  a 

S:  a  1 

«     X      4j 

.a^§ 
as  a 

C/2-  i 

*t£  a  ■'■  ^ 

D  i"  a 
3  a  a>H 

1  =  -  = 


a  u 


M  » 

"  a  -  a 
H 


®  *  a  5 
J3  — "S  5 

.♦-'  an  "-^ 

'*  ■■;=  = 

2  =  s  2  § 
"•9 -a ::  a 

a    _  •-  a  ,^ 

a  a  S  a  "^ 

v;3  3  o  o 

o  i'  s  o  •- 
H        H 


9      # 
2     a 


X  7^  " 


a  -'■a 

a  =-5 


a 

a 

3     -s 

S      ^ 

a 
0 

•i 

S      S 

u 

<«      0 

X 

3 

"^:;: 

-1 

■3 

1S« 

a=i 

i!     y 

>  ^  rt 

r) 

■^  a  « 

1^ 

of*  « 

3 

^  it 

a  ^  u 

bf 

a      a 

4) 

s  3  a 

3  a  0 

a 
0 

a  0.2 

u  3  u 
0  «  0 

H 

H 

H     H 

tta 

'a 
C  a 


it  i 


—  » 


_  a  T 
S  a  - 


-  "  .a  -  ~  ii  J-- 


"1^ 


ri  a  C^  a 


«  2-a 

s-  a  a 
e  o  » 


a  1 

3   S 


^11 

^30 


•^•3    =2 
«£     2 


a  -""     J 

1-  '^  'S  li  "3 
3  e . 


■a 


a 

3 


a 
3 

o 
IS 
3 


a  '^  ■ 


?-  -.-a 
>  1^  « 
a  C'r 

o  X 

M  i.2 


a;  3  3 

t-  -.  ^ 

0  =  ::; 

*J  X 

Ef  i;  a 


3 

13 
3 


a 
o 

a 

a 
o 


■^?S-=.2    B        -S    -S.-S 


So« 


o 

-3 


O 


a-oco  aS 
H         H 


a 
o 
u 

o 
H 


■w  a,  D 

3X3 

a  J  a  J  a  — 

«^.S     '.'     t.     3     if' 

H     H     H 


•3     £ 


o 
H 


H 


3 
■3 


3  O 

•3  -3 


3 
•3 


o 

•3 


•3 

Si  . 

^1 

00 

as 

J2 

00 

1859 
1860 

1 

tH 

^ 

2 

i 

■-a 

CO 

i 

^1 

'     1 

3    S    1 

co" 

t-^ 

ro 

(O       0' 

o" 

■S 

s 

aT 

gT 

!3 

§ 

CO 

■* 

"     1 

oT     0" 

0 

0 

3 
a 

» 

a 
3 

1     ^ 

1 

C 
A 
< 

3 

3 

>» 

3 
-n 

3 

is 
3 

a. 
<1 

^    1 

y     «     3 
0    q    ^ 

a 
S 


a 
.s 


a 

2 
3 


3 


a 

3 
X 

a 

.£) 

3 


T3 

a 


•< 


a 


-<1 


o 


W     t^ 


3 
■-5 

cq 
a 

a 
E 
3 


0 

a 

cS5 

a 

>-3 

3 

3 

^H 

w 

cq 

5 

X 

30 

a 

3 

a 

a 

t 

a 

a 

a 

" 

H 

i? 

3 

P4 


e8 

a 

a 


M 

P 
3 

a 
m 

s   g 

33      "3 


rt     —      2 


O 


THE    FISHERIKS   TREATY. 


127 


o 

a. 


a 

;         3, 
I       3 


9    r.'s 
t    ■-  i" 

fl  *  i. 

i'5  O 


.9-5  5i 


a 


a  ^ 

£  .3 

3  C   « 

o  -  t- 


a 
s 
K 


a 


a 


•J  ») 


a 
^■5       3 


;^     a 

;^      a 


o 
Pi 
.  q 


3      « 


?i    ;;    <^    ;3    72 


s  a  ' 

■-  I 

59 


=  a  i—  t. 


C   3 

S3 
^  5 


.5  ^  • 


V  —  ?  3 


■•:  -■- 

C  a 


2 


c^ 


a 


a 

"3 


J 

.a 

a 

9 


.3 


i 


S  =    5  i^i 


•^     7\ 


3 


J3 


« 

a 
a 

9 

a 

C4 


a 
a 

c 
o 

5* 

.IS 


a  ti 

i<  — 


a 


-iii  a  5  5 


s 

g 

a 

d  5  a 


a. 


-a      u 


>:0 
t.  <-« 

3 


01       ■r'-^ 


•a 


<-  a.    0-  3 
.2  3     "S  ? 


u  1^      =; 


« 
^ 


C3 
Q 


t 


s 
•-  a 


i-5-a 


it: 


5« 


—     -,1   — 


*; 


2S 


*->        — 


2| 


.2  2.    So 
a  u      0}  a 


>  -■  >i' 


Sa 


■5     :S      a, 

.2       .-        O ., 


ci'-a 

S— •   OS 

a  u 


as      o  "=.«•>  a 


a  s 


.   •"  CO 
-  —  X 


<-  o  ♦-  >  »  a 


08--  rt 


-=.s- 


?  o 


Q    ,  rt  «  fc- 


3      StE=';:5''3-~*=-:t5      s>='irt      s  s  s  -  ■-  ::  s  ^  z  C      -  ■'^  -^  ^  ~  ^'^  "-  '~  -      -  V  ^ 
S      S      23SoS-i'2~a'*     ■«aa:S"      "  S"  ib~«  S"^  25"  J:  a  s'">  ?t  8'^'^'=  S  Si's 


f- 

H 

H     b*     f^ 

r 

E- 

E- 

H     H     E- 

E- 

fr*'r^      H          e 

c 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

be 

a 
.c 

*0 
1 

c 

o 
U 

s 

)      c 

o      o      c 

_s 

; 

J         ^ 

do 

do 

coo         s 

c 

^ 

-= 

c 

o 
•c 

J 


o 

»  a 

s  o 


n 


1^  a  j;     -5 


8    S 


rt  .2 
a'S 


_--'3 


a  3 


•2    bi 

a" 


a  is 
e  o 

«  ft. 


la 


M 


CO       CO        00       6b  CO  oo  -JO 


a  < 


N        ^ 


O     Q     ^     ^     hS 


a^*^ 


<     125     'fl     Q     a 


CO        »ft  00  ^         £* 


a.a     .2 

CO,®  » 


a      <1      a 


M  H 


cc 


^  "z  » 


C3      a 


I   Es 


•2    ^ 


'/I 


w   td 


M    'W     H     feS 


P?. 


M 


o 


5   :| 


a  -s 


.S        !» 


^ 


<(      hS      W      t^      pR 


53    a 


fe      s 


^ 


W      Hs 


a 


M        :;: 


< 


m 


^   o 


M 


U2 


"l       M    ^ 


128 


THK    FISHERIES    TREATY, 


■=a 


A 


M 


»5 


M 


M 


n 


0)  a 

^1 


3.2 


f(-  J 


§1 


^  =     is 

•5     M 


C8.2 


H-'J 


a     .3 


3     u 


^     -     a 


=  J    -    t;    .5  5     1 
=  ■--    =    I    If    I 


a. 3 
£     .S  5 


e  r     S     3      5  5 

K  ^"      J    ^  ./.  CB  "^ 


«-  ,:  — 


*      >, 


i:^ 


H 


33 


27Ls 

it'-''  " 

*  J  ^  i,  b, 

O           V)  3  i  ^ 


(tj 


ez   ■-: 


2  s  s     = 


^1   ,     I 


■9i     S     =i 


"  f  " 


B.2      Aiia      .• 


«i  ■»       t '~  "^ 


2-3 


•iC-r'        ~ 


■.'■J 


S     -S        ? 


=  S' 


--a     S      2 

53  's  -i 


-^     g    ,::57j3       •-    ~    "^ 


.•ST       s_:  a 


•S      ^i.O 


S'^.S"- 5 


>  e 


S'a      =3     ^ 


.5-3     y    -£4 


f^  "■  r  I   "  i  w   .*' 


5  =  tJ 


^s-^-^^ 


u      —         —  ^ 


-  r  a 


fc.  *  -  •- 


3  ^  "  «^-. 


t        i       K 
t_        t-       -■ 


.2     .S 


3  .-sxr    =  s 


Sia.:3    i; 


"■  c ""  ""  'I™      .2      *— •  •'^ 


£         4,—    - 


^r:0, 


a<f     z 


I-  r,~  i     .00       3 
,.  -  c  ~  ■'• '«    .  " 

^  .i  -^^ .-  **  -  -•  '^ 


•^  .-  «  .5  X  i. 


*;  r  3  a  -  3 


3—3     ^:c: 


rts-         s'         -SSi;.  3 

q  .  a     a         a^     =«5sS^_      «     - 

"  s  ;■    2      ijs.  £  sB"^^  3^1 


-■c  S.T:  «..;  = 


i-  3     =  = 


iltl^l      1^.-?   I      1111.1  i11.r: 


a  a  J  3 


.—  .^  -/.  a,"^  **  „  _.  ^1  .-  _ 


a  X  a 


H 


3  :  c?  = 


H     H 


c  5M0 


'OJ  5  O 


,U.=5 


•e         •=•« 


a  I- 

=9.3 


t  a 

|i 


s  s? 


00        00        00        QD  X 


s 


?f 


C-l        rH        PH 


i-5V^»-r>«!-']         ccOO 


?S 


00 


<;     <i 


"S      !2 


«w        (S 


O 


a 


O 


M 


e     1/2 


H      -3 


»3 


§  s  s 

W    ;5   ^ 


a    PS 


w 


-c  ;a 


h^   » 


w      a 


_  3        O 

=  P     Q 


^ 


■r       fe 


i-s         -     1-5 


W 


P4 


;3 


3'S 


SO 

25 


T'  3 


?^        H 


00 


a 


fii 

'S 

0 

a 

J 

ai 

c 

y) 

K 

a 

b, 

a 

0 

0 

*i 

W 

s. 


THE    FISHERIKS    TREATV. 


129 


'£1 
a  5_ 


>  : 
a  ' 


an      i< 
«.3     S3 


a 
Q 


as      a  5 
^.2     rt.2 


a 

V 


5 


a      k  :^ 

w     as 

a     =.=■ 
"  a 


a  3 
'    a 


.3  2. 


^-    -*•  O    ~    — •  L.    U    '—.S     1) 


a 


a  : 


a 

a 


3  a 


=•3 


2  II  a  ^i  II  «  .    . 

3  a-**  3  a"*^,^  3 
,  > ' 
'  a 


•r;  V 


a 


a*  5 

a  a 


a  a    --J     : 


5      is 


01 

a-H 


t'M 


3  •- 


5> 


^  G3 

a 

u 

a  3 
5i  5 


a5 


5.2 


a32S 


a  3 


2-a 


£  3-.3  5  ; 


9 

'.    .3 

I       :; 

1     3 
u      « 

-•a 


S.i  .3 
>.^  ^< 
2I  -a 

—  ■!>  a 
c  a     V 

-  fr* « fc- 


3 


V 


a 


:34 

5  .'. 


e>,5 


Asa 


3  25  2  3  ?.3^.s  11 
3  a  A^  >  *3  3  a  c9 
W.-IJ5  a  aw-  E 


'a^^.l?. 


a     "     .2 
K"53     J:  2     a^ 


c-s     S'J     ;v>.= 


|£|3  ; 
-i'aa     ^ 

t.1  «  ^  .    L. 

c  3  j:  i  -i  "^ 
V  ^  w  x;  '.f-'  J 
•    a  3  " "-S 


3^   S 


ova 
S  ^ 


=  5    .r 


a  i 


f-:3  0-3  > 

a  2.3  --  "^  a 

.£  a  -    ,  >>  3  - 

-  a  i  a  J  - . 


.a 


a-: 


~-z  a 


rS  „        s  rt 


—  =5  . 


-  .^   .»   x 


«■::.=.  a  > 


c!   3 


3  2     >::;=.     -ji  - 


a 

a 

a 

> 

!^ 

a 

eS 

u 

m 

S5 

^ 

.a 

rS 

3 

EC 

:"_5a-o=-a     ^*     -5 


K-*  — ;a-j:>3      •-■:::      33      l.-     n^     .---     —  w-y^a  •'^'fi      ^x*---      "*"' 

-■  r>:=3;::      Ta       33       ?:?      i^     TU      •<      a::—  o  s^J^Ka-Ssj      „» 

=  ■:  1*      >-     Ml-     tii-oaC'*,^         t:j=      w  ^i'-  --3  =-z— s^-5   .—  — 

go  S  s     2     So     s.2=-=     -".a'di-     £:J5..i::s  .=  ^  ? u ■=;...■=.*- 5  =  ^ 

«  r-  ^  ?  =  i:  -  ?  -  T  r,  .*"  X  .-J  *-  "j  r  i-    *  r.  /,  -:  r  « --  :3  r  .-<  i,  ■!  r.  -  -  a  y  r**  ^  r'  :^ 


rS  'nn  9 


o3 


2     -  = 


3 


t«i 


o« 


'^■-  2.-'-=I-~ 


H     H 


oXaateov-oisBsaayi'So 
H         H        H         H  H 


O  -  3-^  *' 


o  ;  -i      o  M  c  ■ 


•  •  •  I  •  ■  ■  •  I  *  I  •  '  I  t  t  ) 


-  w 


O 


r-i         -- 


-s        -r        '3        •=        -= 


-3  -5  r3 


M 


<    <! 


5    *-5 


=1     o 


n 


cc 


w 


.1  1-1  — 

>i        tb        fei) 


fl  a 
?  2  3 
3         a      « 


W 


O      M 


« 

c4 


Ph         a 


S.  Mis.  109 9 


^ 


M 


u 


o 


W 


o    o 


:§     3 


ri"        ?i         ?> 


O 


W 


H         = 


«      3 
11 

1^     O 


P^ 


130 


THE    FISHERIES    TUEAIY. 


» 
s 
a 

a 
o 

o 

'A 

c 


! 

a.      « 
5     S 


V      5 


c  .  fl  ■ 

O  ^  5 

w  " 

«  ■«  -  -^ 

<,=  «3 

a  i*  ^  o 

O  «  3  O 


H 


o 

-3 


^    iS 


o 

a 

a 


TIIK    riSIIKRIKS    TllF.ATY, 


131 


so                  C                  0C003             OO             0=             2              S 

H      -1               —               —      ri      ri       M      M          ~i       r-5          p      M          ri           -f 

K 


I 

Si 

hi 

is 

o 
a. 

-g 


O        5 
•3       -3 


S£ 


3        3 
1^       -S 


o      o 
t5      S5 


73 


a 
c 

'-5 


o 


l-l^- 

xao 

S 

00 

g 

■n 

5 

cT 

?f 

oo" 

?q 

o 

5 

S" 
s 

P. 

2     3 


P3     CO 


a 

«  ! 

^      hi  r' 

o  s 


H     W 


W     2 


o 


^  «     S 


■J     ^     »     S     h? 

^      §     a     3      n         I"    •£         fe      g 


5!- 


o 


it 

il 


i  s  a 


Sa  £  i  2 

K  2  :::  :=  ^  2  ~ 

g^  s  s  a  2  § 

K^  w  a  M  a  s) 


* 


132 


THE    FISHERIES   TREATY. 


■as 


a  i: 


r. 


t  «•= 


CD 


,    '«  ;;  3 


3     ■* 

c,  a 


t« 


i^ 


"3  ^. 

a  t. 

B  « 


«  a  c 
■t:  r  a 

=  1^-2 
"5  £2 


o 


3 

e 
M 


a 
a  o 


0^  c 

xr.Ji 

c  s 


■w  u 


^ 

^ 


MW 


^^  -   S      a  —  *^ 


=8 -a 

a  2.2 

>  =  o 


S^     c^<^     ^ 


a 


01 

S 

a 
o 


o 

id 


a 

CO 


.'-a      u 

«  _.    - 


t!         Sag 


a  '<* 

(o  a 

>  o 

a  '-J 

8i 


o 
;.i 


a  # 


""  ?  2  C  00 
«  e  ^t  -  « 
tS-£a~>' 

'^  ».  r  3  c« 


Vt  -^  *^ 


•  ©  «  a 

•  ^  (».S 

S  •  a  C 

a '  ^  Zi 

X  t^  p.  a 

,=".=>  «  a 

i^""  «.  o 

.5:  .2  5  I- 

•-  ~  eS  — 


i  I 

-J     iu 
9     Z 

'«■,    a 
C-.  o 


a  = 

la 


Si 


-    n  2 

2  •'.  ? 

r:a 

c  ^-  r* 

«  a-   '— 


CO 

5-. 

o 


-s         a 

C5  K 


5a 


a 
o 
O 


C3 


5;^     oi 


>v.=  * 


T, 


a       :i; 


a 


a  a 


F-SS^      S^ 


""  -  a  „ 


a         3.2^ 


a  x 

5-21; 


^f  a  i 

-  ■.-  i  J 

rt  *  a  > 

i  1;  ^  a 

'3'2  >-  3 


a 

o 
u 

9 


5  =-  V  C- 
c  o!<  o  '■ 


H 


3  »  -  ;.-'^ 
X  ^  a  a  a  o 

Ol^  O  O  »"  I* 


I J -3 
"it? 

?j « =« 

o-2o 

—    X    -* 

S  ,■-  O 

X  ''  a   . 

a  £  =  « 

?..a'?3 


'  s' 
H 


£  a      i  =  a 
o  «  ./  «- J  is 

r;  2  S~  '  a 
e  £•£?,§  a 

«        ,•   O  S   1) 

o  01^  o  a  * 
HH     H 


a 

1^ 


•-  a 

a. 2 

>  a 
a  y 

O    (- 

«»  a 

5S  = 


£'3  . 
a  X 
o  a 
-  c 
c  u 
H 


;2  i^, 

a  >.     =3 
at;     Hr  a 


=:  3 


t  -  S  3^ 


es—  3.3  5 


.2  5  J  i 


.3  X 

a  a 


o  -J 
Ms 


i*a 


■^■§3 
^  w  — 

H 


•^  .    c  in  > 

a  *—     ,x 
aiafi- 

®        .3   >.S 

a  ==.- s  is 


=S  a  5  i-  2  : 
M  ^  •  ®  ^  ■ 

H         H 


2-^ 
.  a 


3 

o 


"3  -3-3       -5  -^ 


O 

•a 


a-3  5 

o 

'a^  2- 

■SgH 

X  £1^ 
fc-  *       < 

a  :  . — ^ 


■  .  c 

'a  >. 
12 


73 


CO 


3 
c 
3 

5 
o 
O 


.3  ^  ^3 


as 
.2.2 


w 

£ 

m 

00 

00 

0 

CD 

0  s 

oc  00 
00  X 

s 

00 

s 

Its" 

> 

1 

>1 

•3 

1 

8  a 
a  OS 

31  3>  O 
00  OC  00 
00        00  00 


M  ,•»  00 

00  00  00 


a 


;sa 


9 

a 
s 


a 
S 


13 


Cii; 
a 

a 


u 


ii 


•—  X 


M 


I 


a 


3 


Sm 


^  as 


-  9 
=1 


e 


aa 

c8  rt 


IS^ 


i-a 


^  i 

3    3 

S3  « 


"      s. 


3 


&=  ^ 


3 

.a 
■J 

CO 

<s 

a 

bll 

3 


a 
o 


8 
.a 

« 
a 
o 
tt 

a 
H 


0 

4- 

;j 

c 

•c 

0, 

Q 

c 

SJ 

^ 

'^ 

*^ 

3; 

A 

t*« 

0 

oc 

2 

■«-s 

■0  2 

> 

•0 

a  n 

-^ 

a.3 

a  *■ 

0  *■ 

Si 

«j  . 

oi: 

v-l 

— ( 

e 
I- 

e 


CO 


o 


o 


a 

w 
a 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


133 


=  C-~  s 

«  ~      > 

>.a  z  0 

X 

■•?•=■=  2^ 

0 

£^-  y^ 

2  C..2  r-- 

.  .2  *  -  « 

3 

s-.s   -'t; 

a 
o 

B  2  §3  s 

O 

W            (« 

r  a 
r  o 


o 


V 


(«.g 

b-.  a 
a  ~; 

.9  -     5 
S  S     'c 


o'o-^ 


a  • 


C/3 


II 


2ii      a 
"••5,     rt 

?.=  ^    J! 

a  =w  § 


.—    r  ;  a 


"2 


*  «  «  O 
5  =  3* 

S-r  o| 

o  1*  o  a 
H     H 


^5 


^■'2 
1  a 

—  cS 
ars 
.2  « 

a  ^  ■ 

V   - 

Oca  a,c 
£-  tn. 


•ES      «      J! 

?•=      _      a 

I-) 


o    2 


CO 


M  a      e  . 


a 


;i  "=.a 


s    a     s 


>.^  ♦-       T! 


•£    X  ^ 

S  a  » 


a  cs 

3   il 


o  —  .2  X  — 
'  5  C'  2  a 
*  a  -"  i^  ■- 


H 


a  a'C 
.2""  !* 

'is  5 

c  c5  a 

i  a  - 

V   4>  ^ 

CT  o 
H 


'?    ? 

*    a 

u    >u 

II 

a  ~ 

o 


a  X 

^a 
a® 

a  - 

H5 
'E  :^    . 

ij  a  be 
S  =  g 

H 


en 


I -=3 


«r 


a  t- 
*  ci 


'Z    C 
OS     = 


a  ^  -.   -^i 


a  a 
'-5.S 


it      0) 

°  a  a 

o  ua 

§3  8 

0-" 


a-s 
If 


t  s  0 


a  c  — 

5  .0 


.2§ 
la 

*  a 


isi 

Sua 
•r  a 

!5  «  O 

t-.a-s 


cs  a  ^ 


J      c 


=  S 


^■3   -a 

T   r  <C  - 


cS^t> 
a  ■*  V 

—  '^  *q 
"C  """ 
«0)  o 


St;?! 


•-•s^s^       ^3 


:  0""  t-rr 


:  5»  H  «j 


o    o  ■ 


'  o  «  « 


ii 

■J  X 
o  » 
H 


,*  X  o  3  . 

M    O    « 


H 


^ija'S 

2:  a  '  S. 
•roar" 

H 


S  —  -a  a 

c  bcij  IS 

« £  a  ax 

—  L  ^  a  ij 

^  a  ^  ^  a 

a  s*  c  a  o 

«  -•  o  « 

;  o  f<  *  o 
H         H 


PS    4; 

"a  'S 

e-5  . 

Ii 

a  *-'2 
g  ti  - 

3;s 


c 
< 

i 

V. 

1. 

c 

c 

■= 

■c 

4 

c 

c 

0             0      c 

•3                 '^.      "^ 

"i 

■5           X 

^ 

s     s 

S2 


S 


(^ 

^ 

^ 

0 

a 

>; 

%           c    «: 

b 

c 

CI 

a 

0 

;i5 

0 

•s; 

a 

^ 

c^ 

•-: 

e 

1-3 

(z 

^ 

^ 

; 

; 

; 

; 

m^A.^ 

; 

; 

, 

* 

a 

a 

,      ', 

a 

g 

0 

V 

? 

ii 

0 

a: 

' 

ji 

>i 

k. 

ki 

>•. 

>» 

1 

£ 

a 

a 

a 

.     Q; 

3 

3 

• 

b 

,a 

,n 

A 

,:f5E 

^ 

^ 

' 

H 

bl 

tc 

tc 

c 

tc 

tc 

■3 

& 

.5 

3^ 

_a 

^     n^' 

"? 

1- 

.       a 
'■v 

s 

n 

PK 

e 

« 

Hi 

Cn 

S 
U 

pq 

■5 

E 
.3 

5 

H 

H 

M 

•< 

e 

5 

e 

i 

>3 

« 

fcj 

b 

Pi 

f^ 

•t 

Bjs? 

1^ 

f^ 

M 

1 

a 
K 

W 
-a 
a 


a 

V 

o 


Ii 


I—  HH 


134 


THE  fisherip:s  treaty. 


'3 

a 

a 
o 
o 


a 


3 

5 

s 

fe 

it 

c 
o 

a    ■- 

J52 
a  o 

■9 

S3 

o       = 

•1^ 

^li'i-o 

other 

.s 

■/:  r 

O.S-" 

-  =2 

■ 

•      ce  ™ 

O'Z 

cS       '"    1- 

M       i;< 

'^* 

O       S   i 

beg 

H      -r 

If 

• 

S     '^S 

-  > 

C1.S 

'*            >.  *" 

•~    ; 

'^   'ij 

c:  *^' 

OJ    "^ 

^  rt 

'C    rr 

^  ^ 

i 

00 

o 

11 

p^ 

t    ri 

?  r 

-        .v!  '^ 

h    :  =- 

^  5 

•-•  ^ 

J 

CS         ■•"    ~ 

c«  t 

I'      e  e 

^  z 

'^        T^  • — ' 

Tj    ~ 

"o     "S"' 

c|5    . 

c:  ;:  ~  r 

5     c  ? 

r:  CC  ■- 

"■J      «'  ii"  -  .-a-- 



H 

HH 

Ch 

— 

^ 

s 

c. 

M 

I 

*^ 

OS 

■4^         )     • 

o 

T.          .     . 

ja 

*^          I     I 

f 

o       1    ! 

(-       c 

«■ 

rj 

«        .-    - 

b         ® 

o      a.    ; 

:^     CU    : 

■  w^T-",r 

'    f. 

"i 

00        00  TO 

oS      at  aj 

3g 

9  ^ 

|-      xi-r 

■H<" 

•"^'C 

1      w  -< 

T'l 

^a 

>s       —   >-. 

a 

a. 

"3        ^   S 

CS 

^ 

s:^ 

e 

99        CS      ' 

S 

«        S- 

M     M    • 

^ 

W     ^"o 

«    Sa 

M 

S     o 

^ 

IJ      .c 

CJ 

H 

U 

Tlie  I 
ant 

Of  th 
Ami  c 

Tlie  c] 
the 


TbeAr 

And  in 

claim 

Fir 


Seco 
tn 


Appendix  D. 


FISHING-GROUNDS. 

Uniler  the  ireaty  of  ISiH.  . 

Marine 
sq.  miles. 

The  3  niariuo  mile  limit,  which  is  thechiiiiiof  Ainerican  fishenneii,  is  in  bine, 

and  equals 16,  424 

Of  this  area  there  is  in  bays,  cut  off  by  the  3-miIe  limit 6, 599 

And  outside  oi"  the  3-mile  limit 9,825 

Making  a  total,  as  stated,  of •. 10, 424 

The  claims  of  Canadian  li.shernien,  from  headland  to  headland,  would  add  to 

the  area  claimed  by  American  fishermen 6, 164 

Makini?  the  Canadian  claim 22,588 

As  against  American  claim  of 16,424 

Under  the  proposed  treaty  of  1888. 
The  American  fishermen's  claim  is  conceded  to  Canada,  and  is  equal  to 16,424 

And  in  lieu  of  the  6,164  marine  square  miles,  from  headland  to  headland,  as 
claimed  by  the  Canadians,  the  Americans  concede  to  them  as  follows: 
First.  At  bays  of  10  miles  or  less  in  width — 

In  Newfonndlaiul,  8  bays  of 200 

In  New  Brunswick,  8  bays  of 67 

In  Prince  Edward  Island,  3  bays  of 18 

In  Cape  Breton,  2  bays  of 13 

In  Nova  Scotia,  11  bays  of 85 

In  all,  32  bays  of  (colored  brown)  383 

Second.   At  the  bays  named  between  lines  63  and  80,  Article  IV,  proposed 
treaty,  l.s~i8  (ccdored  solid  red) : 

At  Bale  Chaleur,  New  Brunswick 500 

At  Bay  of  Miramichi,  New  Brunswick 23 

At  Egmont's  Bay,  Prince  Edward  Island 20 

At  St.  Anne's  Bay,  Nova  Scotia 5 

At  Fortune  Bay,  Newfoundland 160 

At  Sir  Charles  Hamilton's  Sound,  Newfoundland 2 

lu  all,  at  6  bays 710 

135 


■MM 


136  THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 

■Marino 
Sq.  miles. 

Tliiixl.  At  Lays  iininca  botwcon  lines  81  and  fl:?  in  Article  IV,  of  proposed 

treatj'  of  18d8  (colored  in  parallel  red  lines): 

At  Harrington  Hay,  Nova  Scotia. '^ 

At  Cliedelnicto  and  St.  Peter's  Bays,  Nova  Scotia li: 

At  Mira  Bay,  Nova  Scotia 7 

At  Placentia  Bay,  Newfoundland '^ 

In  all,  4  bays •5*1 

This  gives  a  total  concession  h\  Americans  under  the  proposed  treaty  of  1888 
of '. 1.127 

In  lien  of  a  total  concession  by  the  Canadians  from  their  headland  to  head- 
land claim,  of 5,0I?7 


Appendix  E. 


THE  PENDING  TKEATY. 

KKVIEW  OK  TIIK,  I'lSTlKHIES  NKOOTIATIONS  IJY  W.  I,.  ITTXAM — lllSTOIUCAI,  AND  KX- 
I'LAXATOUV — KHOM  TriK  ISKOIXNIXfl  OF  THK  COXTIfOVKHSY  TO  THK  PUKSENT  TIME — 
WHAT  THE   TUKATY    UXUEKTAKIvS   TO    DO  — HOSTILE    CllITICIS.M    MET. 


Wo  j^ive  below  a  valuable  review  of  "The  Fishtsiies  NeKotiatioiis — Historical  and 
Explanatory,"  by  tlic  Hon.  William  L,  Putnam,  of  the  ooniniissionerK  who  framed  the 
peudinfj;  treaty.  The  paper  was  prepared  for  the  Portland  Frateinity  Club  and  read 
at  a  recent  uieetin<f.  It  is  an  important  contribution  to  the  j)reNent  discussion,  and 
meets  adverse  criticisms  which  have  been  made  upon  the  work  of  the  commission. 

Concerning  the  provisions  of  the  convention  uf  181b,  that  our  lisheinien  may  enter 
the  bays  or  harbors  of  Her  Majesty's  dominions  in  Newfoundland  and  eastern  Canada 
"  for  the  purposes  of  shelter  and  of  rei»airing  damajes  therein,  of  purchasing  wood 
and  of  obtaining  water,  and  for  no  other  purposes  whatever,"  and  are  liable  to  "such 
restrictions  as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent  theirtaking,  drying,  or  curing  lish  therein, 
or  in  any  other  manner  whatever  abusing  thi^  ]»rivileges"  reserved  to  them,  confusion 
lias  arisen  in  Canada  and  also  in  the  United  States — on  the  Canadian  side  by  convert- 
ing this  limitation  of  a  guaxantied  privilege  into  a  universal  one,  and  on  our  side  by 
overlooking  the  indubitable  fact  that  the  practice  of  nations  recognizes  a  broad  line 
between  iishing  vessels  and  ordinary  merchant  vessels,  granting  to  each  class  privi- 
leges not  ])ossessed  l>y  the  other.  From  a  time  at  least  as  eai'ly  as  A.  U.  ISM]  to  the 
present  the  claim  of  Nova  Scotia,  and  afterwards  of  Canada,  has  betiu  inllexible,  that 
a  fishing  vessel  iss/o'  generis,  ami,  if  foreign,  has  no  privileges  within  Britisli  bays  and 
harbors,  except  those  specifically  authorized  by  some  law  of  Great  Uritain  or  of  her 
dominions,  or  by  treaty,  or  by  the  strictest  rules  of  linnianity  ;  though  at  times  this 
claim  has  lain  dormant  in  part,  and  Great  Britain  herself  has  notciuite  countenanced 
its  practical  exercise  to  its  full  extent.  During  all  thin  period  this  construction,  al- 
though often  complained  of  by  the  United  States,  never  has  been  practically  over- 
thrown by  us  in  any  particular. 

Very  soon  after  the  ratification  of  the  convention  of  1818  the  British  Parliament 
passed  the  statute,  chapter  H8,  George  III,  which  condemned  to  forfeiture  vessels  of 
the  United  Slates,  and  of  all  other  nations  foreign  to  Great  Britain,  fishing  or  "  pre- 
])aring  to  fish"  within  the  proliiliited  waters.  These  words  "]»reparing  to  lish" 
found  in  this  early  act  have  been  the  cause  of  many  troubles,  and  are  susceptil)le  of 
a  variety  of  construction.  They  have  been  found  in  every  ])rnvincial  and  Dominion 
statute  relating  to  this  matter  jiassed  at  dilTerent  ])erio(ls,  four  or  five  in  all:  and 
they  have  received  the  sanction  of  long  practical  ac(juiescence  on  the  )>art  of  the 
Enited  States,  and,  we  may  also  add,  the  full  and  cordial  approval  of  so  distin- 
gnisheil  an  American  law  writer  as  Professor  Potneroy.  On  the  I'ith  of  Maieh, 
\6'M),  nearly  one  year  before  President  Jackson  went  out  of  office,  thei-e  was 
passed  the  act  of  Nova  Scotia,  the  model  of  all  the  legislation  since  enacted,  at 
which  is  aimed  the  thirteenth  article  of  the  treaty  Just  negotiated.  This  act  was 
specially  validated  by  royal  orders  in  council,  and  provided  that  local  olficers  might 

137 


138 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


soizo  siiul  l)riiiK  into  i)ort  vessuLs  lioviMing  on  tlio  coasts  of  Xova  Si'otia,  and  rej^nattHl 
the  penalty  of  fbrfoitnro  for  tlioso  tishin<;  or  "  jjit'parinj!;  to  lish  "  within  the  jnesorilted 
waters.  It  also  provided  that  no  person  sbonld  he  adniirted  to  claim  the  vessel  seized 
withont  Inst  <jivii)f>'  seenrity  tor  costs  not  fxcccdinjj;  (>(•  ponnds,  It  also  threw  on  the 
owner  the  bnrdtii  of  proof  in  any  snit  tonchin<;-  the  illejrality  of  sciznre.  It  so  ham- 
pered the  right  of  action  for  un.jnstitiahle  aricsts  of  vessels  as  to  remler  it  substan- 
tially worthless;  and  it  was  so  (jxtrenie  in  its  provisions  that  the  vessel  conld  not  he 
bailed  withont  the  consent,  of  tlie  person  seizinj;'  her.  All  these  provisions  have  heeu 
continued  in  every  statute  of  the  Donuni<in  from  that  time  to  the  present. 

In  A.  D.  1H;{8,  IHIW,  and  1H40,  diirin.n'  the  ailniinistration  of  Mr.  Van  Bnren,  and 
while  John  For.syth  wa.s  Secretary  of  State  and  Levi  Woodbury  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  sixteen  of  our  vo.ssels  were  proceeded  aj^ainst  at  Halifax  and  all  confiscated 
-ejcoiii  .  .  During  the  first  year  of  the  next  administration,  and  while  Webster 
was  Secrciary  of  State,  seven  were  seized  and  proceeded  against,  only  two  of  which 
were  restored.  These  i)rosecutions  were  under  this  statute  of  I8;{fi.  It  is  not  certain 
that  Mr.  Forsyth  knew  of  its  existeiu;e  until  near  the  close  of  his  term  of  ofiice, 
when  he  made  an  earnest  remonsi  ranee  against  it.  The  rt.'cords  also  fail  to  show  that 
Webster  in  any  way  took  notice  of  it;  aithough  after  Webster  retired  from  the  Cab- 
inet, ?1i  V-'.-f;t,:  while  minister  at  London,  under  instrnctions  from  Mr.  Uiishur. 
then  F_orfc1rtv,>  of  Stii.e,  reiterated  the  complaints  of  Mr.  Forsyth.  When  Webster 
again  beci m  ;?  ..rary  of  State,  and  not  long  before  he  died,  he  made  the  famous 
fipet'ch  at  Jiarshtiel'!,  '-i  'vhich  In*  said: 

"  it  is  r'lt  t<*  be  e\,  ■  >  ■.'  Ih'  United  Stat(>s  would  submit  their  rights  to  be  adjndi- 
•cat'  d  in  ti  >  ,/et' v  tribi.  .  ui'  the  i»rovinces,  or  that  wo  shall  allow  our  own  vessels 
to  be  seized  by  c«jnHti;Vi^  e  \ "  i^tl.ar  petty  otticials,  and  condemned  by  the  municipal 
courts  of  Qn(;bec,  Nev>  xoniHi;..  ..:,  New  Brunswick,  or  Canada." 

Notwithstanding  ihis,  from  the  time  the  statute  was  enacted  in  A.  D.  18;V)  till  the 
])resent  negotiations,  not  only  was  its  rejx.'al  or  modification  not  secured  by  the  United 
States,  and  not  only  contrary  to  the  phrases  of  Web.ster  did  the  United  States  submit 
the  rights  of  their  vessels  to  be  adjudicated  in  the  tribunals  of  the  ]trovince8an<l  allow 
them  to  be  seized  by  ])rovincial  constables  ami  other  provincial  petty  otticers,  but  in 
A.  1).  1868,  and  afterwards  in  A.  1).  1870,  the  Dominion,  without  protest  from  us,  rc- 
enaeted  and  intensified  tin;  law  of  l~il!(i  by  statutes  ever  since  in  force. 

The  disputes  covering  this  first  period  from  A.  1).  18:}()  to  A.  D.  18.")4  were  confined 
mainly  to  four  questions: 

(1)  Whether  great  bays,  like  tho.se  of  Chalenr  and  Fundy,  were  bays  of  the  British 
dominions. 

(y)  Whether — and  this  was  a  broader  question,  though  not  perhaps  wholly  distinct — 
Great  Britain  conld  lawfully  run  aline  from  headland  to  headland,  soasto  shut  in  great 
bends  like  that  of  Prince  Edward  Island  and  that  on  the  east  coast  of  Cape  Breton. 

(3)  Whether  the  provincial  officers  could  drive  out  our  vessels  from  provincial  bays 
and  harbors  when,  in  the  judgment  of  the  authorities,  they  did  not  in  fact  need  shelter 
or  rejiairs;  and 

(4)  The  legislation  already  referred  to. 

These  questions  were  not  in  all  respects  analogous  to  those  which  arose  between 
A.  I).  18t)H  and  A.  D.  1870,  and  whicli  have  again  arisen  in  the  last  two  years  ;  but 
whatever  they  were,  none  of  them  were  settleil  and  all  were  postponed,  and  for  the 
tinu^  being  submerged  in  the  reciprocity  treaty  of  1854.  In  A.  D.  18()6,  at  the  expira- 
tion by  notice  from  the  United  States  of  the  treaty  of  18ri4,  the  difficulties  touching 
the  fisheries  were  renewed,  and  they  continued  until  suspended  by  the  treaty  of 
Washington  of  1871. 

During  this  period  substantially  every  question  arose  which  has  been  in  dispute 
within  the  last  two  years:  yet  not  one  of  them  was  permanently  settled  by  Congress, 
the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  or  by  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  The  consular 
correspondence  in  the  snmnuir  of  A.  D.  1870  shows  that  our  vessels  were  then  for- 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


IS.) 


ipeated 

•1  HtMzed 
r  on  the 
so  liam- 
mbstau- 
\  not  V)e 
ve  been 

•Bn,  anil 
y  of  the 
iti  seated 
VVebstor 
nf  which 
(t  certain 
of  oRice, 
liow  tliat 

the  Cab- 
,  Ui>8hnr. 

Webster 
le  famous 

he  atljndi- 
!vn  vessels 
mnnioipal 

m  till  the 

;he  United 

tes  submit 

and  allow 

ers,  but  in 

oni  ns,  rc- 


he  con 


fined 


Itho  British 

distinct— 
|nt  in  great 

Breton. 
Incial  bays 

jed  shelter 


between 

,'ears  ;  but 

Lnd  for  tlie 

[hn  expira- 

tonchins 

treaty  of 

|iu  dispute 
Congress, 
consular 
then  for- 


bidden obtaining  )»ait  and  all  other  supplies  in  Canada,  and  were  excluded  from  Do- 
minion ports  except  when  putting  in  for  the  purposes  expressly  named  in  the  Ccmven- 
tion  of  1818.  Numerous  seizures  were  made  at  that  time,  f(dlowed  by  forfeitunss,  one 
of  whi(;h  was  the  well  known  case  of  the  ,/.  JI,  jSickernon,  a  vessel  proceeded  against 
at  Halifax  for  purchasing  bait,  while  the  United  States  took  no  action  whati'ver  con- 
cerning lu-r  and  made  no  reclamation,  so  that  she  i)ecame  a  totiil  loss  to  her  owners- 
This  ]ieriod  ended  in  the  treaty  of  1871,  as  did  that  which  closed  in  A.  D.  18ii4,  with, 
out  the  United  Stiites  securing  favorable  interpretation  of  any  light  in  dispute. 

The  references  to  the  treaties  of  1854  and  1871  are  merely  for  the  necessary  purpose 
of  showing  their  liearing  on  the  present  status.  Those  negotiations  were  on  a  much 
broader  scale,  and  may  he  said  to  have  involved  larger  (inestions  than  those  now 
under  consideration  ;  altlu)ugh  everything  which  enthingers  in  the  least  the  harmony 
of  nations  must  be  regarded  as  tonchiui;  the  jiossibilities  of  great  coiisequen(!es.  The 
nation  would  not  brook  that  the  high  motives  an<l  great  skill  and  expeiienee  of  the 
gentlemen  concerned  in  the  fornuition  of  those  treaties  should  not  be  at  all  times  de- 
clared. The  treaty  of  1854  was  a  henelicent  production  of  broad  statesmanship,  a 
blessing  to  the  country,  and  its  good  results  have  come  down  to  this  <late  in  the  en- 
largement of  connncreial  relations  with  Canada,  which  is  .mnmg  its  legitimate  issue, 
anil  has  already  long  survived  its  own  existence. 

The  negotiations  of  1871,  as  well  as  the  consequent  proceedings  at  Geneva,  were  in 
the  haiuls  of  ))racticed  statesmen  and  jurists,  h?d  by  a  Secretary  of  Stale  eminent 
alike  for  his  private  and  jtublic  virtues.  Tlu-se  citizens  had  been  honored  by  tlie  peo- 
ple with  numy  trusts;  but  for  their  di})ldn)atic  acconiplishnu'Uts  at  Washington  and 
the  verdict  at  Geneva  they  will  also  Ite  honered  by  histo'-y.  While  the  ))nrely  acci- 
dental result  of  the  Halifax  commission  must,  in  comparison,  be  regarded  as  the 
splattering  and  dickering  of  a  farthing  candle,  the  exact  eo.«it  of  which  is  known  but 
will  soon  be  forgotten,  the  moral  spectacles  of  the  grander  arbitration  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  of  the  treaty  which  le<l  to  it,  have  i;iven  out  a 
light  which  will  shine  on  aiul  on  for  the  illumining  of  civilization  so  long  as  the 
English  tongue  shall  be  spoken.  Considering  .all  the  great  interests  which  those 
negotiators  had  in  hand,  it  was  not  surprising  that  it  was  deeinetl  by  them  sntheient 
to  give  the  fisheries  a  temporary  i)eace,  which  also  they  had  reason  to  expi  ct  would 
become  permanent.  It  is  in  no  sense,  therefore,  in  a  dispreciatory  spirit  that  we  refer 
to  these  events;  but  only  because  dry  truth  reipiin's  that  tlieir  incidental  etl'ect  on 
The  issues  with  which  wt;  now  have  to  deal  shonld  be  clearly  stated.  The  protocol 
of  the  conference  of  the  commissioners  held  May  4,  A.  D.  1871,  is  as  follows: 

"The  British  commissioners  stated  ihat  they  were  prepared  to  discuss  the  qnestiou 
of  the  fisheries,  either  in  detail  or  gcMierally,  either  toenter  into  an  examination  of  the 
respective  rights  ot  the  two  countries  under  the  treaty  of  1818  and  the  general  law 
of  nations,  or  to  ai>proaeli  at  once  rhe  settlement  of  the  question  on  a  comiMi'hensive 
basis." 

Our  conmiisssioners  selected  the  latter.  The  result  was  no  issues  in  controversy 
concerning  the  iisheries  were  decided,  and  all  were  postitoned;  and  a  ruh^  ot  nego- 
tiation was  adopted  for  that  to])ic.  which  has  since,  justly  or  unjustly,  given  great 
dissiitisfaction  to  the  interests  involved. 

It  thus  appears  tiiat  this  controversy  connn(MU?ed  nu)re  than  a  half  century  since, 
and  during  that  period  nothing  has  been  determined.  After  questions  have  continued 
so  long  unsettled  and  have  been  twice  formally  postixmed,  it  necessaiily  remains  that 
it  is  ditificnlt  for  either  party  to  press  its  full  rights  to  a  eom[ilete  conclusion  in  all 
particulars.  Traditions  become  fixed  on  one  side  or  the  other,  systeuis  of  legislation 
accumulate  which  become  iiuixtricably  involved  with  the  general  nniss,  and  the  co- 
temporary  facts  and  understandings  are  lost  or  assume  new  phases.  Claims  made  by 
Great  Britain,  or  by  Nova  Scotia  or  Canada  in  her  iuinn>,  have  stood  so  long  without 
definitive  reversal  that  they  gained  such  strength  as  to  bo  in  some  particulars  quite 


> 


140 


THP:    FISHEKIES    TRi^ATY. 


!is  (lifflcnlt  ol'distiuh.ineo  as  thoiigli  orijriimlly  hasfd  on  skiiikI  jtrinciples  and  corioct 
rules  of  t'oiiHtnictioii. 

This  was  tlio  status  of  tliosu  (incstioiiH  whon  the  pri'Sfuit  iit^^^otintioiis  coinmeucod ; 
yet  fornior  adiniuistrations  liad  not  failed  to  jrivo  some  indiciations  of  the  snitiiblo 
molliods  of  meeting;  them.  In  the  disiiatcdi  of  Mr.  Seward,  then  Seeretarv  of  State, 
to  Mr.  Adams,  then  our  minister  at  London,  of  A]>ril  10,  A.  1).  IHtili,  Mr.  Seward  sn<;- 
gestod  a  mixed  commission  for  the  folh)\vin<f  purposf's: 

"  (1)  To  ayiTo  ui>on  and  define  by  a  series  of  lines  the  limits  which  sliall  si^parate 
the  exelnsive  from  the  common  rijrht  of  lisjiin^;  on  the  coasts,  and  in  the  seas  adjacent, 
of  the  British  North  American  c(donies,  in  confornuty  with  the  lirsl  artichi  of  tlie  con- 
vention of  181y;  the  said  lines  to  be  reffularly  numbered,  duly  described,  and  also 
clearly  marked  on  cdnirts  prepared  in  duplicate  for  the  i)Mrpose. 

"  (2)  To  agnse  upon  and  establish  such  regulations  as  m.iy  be  necessary  and  jiroper 
to  secnro  to  the  fishermen  of  the  United  States  the  privilege  of  entering  bays  and 
harbors  for  the  pnr))ose  of  shelter  and  of  repairing  damages  therein,  of  purchasing 
"wood  and  of  obtaining  water,  and  to  agree  njion  and  establish  such  restrictions  as 
uiay  be  necessary  to  prevent  the  abnse  of  the  privilege  reserved  by  said  convention 
to  the  iiNhermen  of  the  United  States. 

"(3)  To  agree  npon  and  recommend  the  penalties  to  be  adjudged,  and  such  pro- 
ceedings and  jurisdiction  as  may  be  necessary  to  secure  a  speedy  trial  and  judgment 
with  as  little  expense  as  possible  for  the  violators  of  rights  and  the  transgressors  of 
the  limits  and  restrictions  which  may  be  hereby  adopted." 

The  "memorandum  "  prepared  by  the  Department  of  State  for  the  information  of 
the  commissioners  who,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  assisted  in  negotiating  the 
treaty  of  Washington  of  1871,  contained  suggestions  for  adjustment  in  the  following 
language : 

"(1)  By  agreeing  npon  the  terms  npon  which  the  whole  of  the  reserved  (ishing- 
grotmds  may  be  thrown  open  to  American  fishermen,  which  might  be  accompanied 
with  a  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  laws  and  the  abrogation  of  the  disputed  reservation 
as  to  ports,  liarbors,  etc. ;  or,  failing  that, 

"(2)  By  agreeing  npon  the  construction  of  the  dif^puted  renunciation,  upon  the 
jtrinciples  npon  which  a  line  should  be  run  by  a  joint  conunission  to  exhibit  the  ter- 
ritory from  which  the  American  lishernien  are  to  be  excluded,  and  by  repealing  the 
obnoxious  hivvs,  and  agreeing  upon  the  measures  to  be  taken  for  enforcing  the  colo- 
nial rights,  the  penalties  to  be  intlicted  for  a  forfeiture  of  the  same,  and  a  mixetl 
tribunal  to  enforce  the  same.  It  nniy  also  be  well  to  consider  whether  it  should  he 
further  agreed  that  the  fish  taken  in  the  waters  oi)en  to  both  nations  shall  be  ad- 
mitted free  of  duty  into  the  United  Slates  and  the  British  North  American  colonies." 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  suggestions  of  Mr.  Seward  were  substantially  repeated 
in  the  instructions  of  A.  D.  1871,  and  were  also  embraced  almost  in  terms  in  the  pro- 
posals accoujpanying  the  dis|)atch  of  Mr.  Bayard  to  Mr.  Phelps  of  November  15,  188i); 
and  the  treaty  just  negotiated,  it  is  believed,  accomi)lishes  all  which  was  coutein- 
plated  by  them. 

The  words  of  delimitation  of  the  convention  of  1818  are  as  follows:  "On  or  within 
3  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts,  bays,  cretdvs,  or  harbors  of  His  Britannic;  Maj- 
esty's dominions  in  America."  The  prohibition  of  1818  covered  in  terms  not  only  the 
coasts,  but  also  the  bays  of  the  British  dominion;  so  that  a  fair  construction  of  the 
language  could  not  be  met  by  running  a  line  which  at  all  points  followed  the  wind- 
ings of  the  shore.  Such  was  apparently  the  theory  of  Edward  Bates,  the  umpire,  in 
his  opinion  given  in  the  case  of  the  Washington,  decided  niider  the  convention  of 
1853,  wherein  he  used  the  following  language:  "The  conclusion  is  therefore  irresist- 
ible that  the  Bay  of  Finidy  is  not  a  British  bay  within  the  moaning  of  the  word  as 
used  ill  the  treaties  of  17b3  and  1818."  So  also  Mr.  Everett  in  his  note  of  May  •,'."), 
A.  D.  1844.  said:  "The  vessels  of  the  United  States  have  a  general  right  to  approach 
all  the  bays  in  Her  Majesty's  colonial  dominions   within  any  distance  not  less  than 


THE    FISHKRIKS    TRHATV. 


141 


Kinoct 

enced ; 
11  i  til  bio 

r  st!it<', 

nl  siij-- 

oiiaiato 
Ijiiceut, 
lie  con- 
111(1  also 

1  pl'Dll'T 

lays  and 
fcliasing 
?,tioiis  as 
ivention 

uicli  Vi'o- 
iidifnit^iit 
I'esHors  ot 

mat  ion  of 
ating  tlie 
following- 

(1  fisliinji- 
ionipauied 
jservatiou 

,  upon  tlio 
it  the  tei- 
loaliiig  the 
If  the  colo- 
(l  a  mixed 
should  he 
liall  he  ad- 
colouies." 
•  repeated 
|iu  the  pro- 
r  15,  18315; 
,8  couteiu- 

or  within 
luinic  Maj- 
l)t  only  till' 
tion  of  the 
the  wiud- 
lumpire.  in 
Ivention  of 
Ire  irresist- 
Ihe  woi'd  as 
lot  May  -i-"', 
L>  appi'oai'h 
It  less  than. 


'\  miles."  It  irt  not.  however,  to  he  iinder.stooil  by  tliis  sM;iij;i'stii>ii  that  the  "licad- 
land"  theory  is  at  all  aeeepted.  That  assumed  to  run  a  line  sliiittiuj;  in  all  sinuosi- 
ties of  tlie  coast,  witiiout  emisideriiiy  whetlier  or  not  partieiilar  lieadlamls  niiirived 
Jiirisdictidnai  bays,  or,  in  otiier  words,  bays  wliicii  weic  properly  parts  of  iIh'  Hritisli 
doininioMs,  and  it  is  now  ii])pi'oved. 

Tliat  tln;r(^  may  l»e  no  misunderstanding;,  let  us  follow  this  disijiic'tion  a  little  fur- 
ther. The  U'dnliiinitoii  was  seized  in  the  l$ay  of  Fiindy  in  A.  D.  IH4:{,  and  tliat  raised 
a  <|uestioii  of  the  "bays,"  that  is.  whether  (he  whole  of  Fuinly  was  a  jiart  of  the 
Hritisli  dominions.  The  .iriiim  was  seized  at  nearly  the  same  tinwi  in  tlu'  yreat  luuid 
of  Cape  Hretoii.  As  t  he  .il'iidavits  on  tile  at  Halifax  show,  she  was  (uiptiired  less  than 
•i  miles  within  a  line  from  Cape  North  to  Cow  15ay  ;  and  that  capture  marUeil  the 
*'  he.adland"  disputes. 

The  opiuion  of  the  law  ollicers  ot  the  Cr<iwu  of  1811,  in  answer  to  the  second  and 
third  (jneries,  said,  errone^iiNly.  of  course:  "The  term  'headlMnd'  is  used  in  .he 
treaty  to  exprt^ss  tiie  part  of  l;ind  we  have  before  mentioned,  ineliidinn  the  interim' 
of  the  bays  and  the  indents  of  thiM'oast."  Ii  may  heii'  ln^  said  that  the  s.iiiie  o|iiiiioii 
in  answer  to  the  foiirtii  query  denied  the  free  rjoht  (d'  iia\  i;;'atine  \\n'  (Jut  of  Canso. 
Mr.  Stephenson,  our  minister  at  London,  reci>yiii/.ed  the  dislinetioii  in  his  note  to 
Lord  Palmerston  of  March  27,  A.  D.  18;i9,  where  he  said  :  "The  provincial  iinthorities 
assume  a  ri;;ht  to  exclude  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  from  all  tiieir  bays,  ineliid- 
iu;;  those  ot  Fiiiidy  and  Clialcur,  and  lik^^wise  to  [irohibit  llieir  approatdi  within  :{ 
miles  of  a  line  drawn  from  headland  to  headland,"  etc.  So  Mr.  Lvereit,  in  his  note 
to  Earl  Aberdeen  of  May  2;"),  A.  D.  184.4,  admitted  that  it  was  "  t^ie  intent  of  the 
treaty,  as  it  is  in  itself  reasonable,  to  have  ree;ard  to  the  <>ciieral  liin!  of  the  coast, 
and  to  consider  its  bays,  creeks,  and  harbors,  that  is,  the  indentations  usually  so  ac- 
counted, as  included  within  that  line." 

Xow,  the  present  treaty  apparently  holds  to  the  rnh^  stated  l)y  Mr.  Everett,  except 
that  it  dclines  what  has  lieretolbri'  been  undidined.  Tliis,  of  course,  is  subject  to  the 
(pialification  that,  exci'pt  iu  siiecial  cases,  in  A.  D.  IHH  jniisdictiou  hays  were 
limited  to  those  not  exceeiliim-  i;  miles  in  width  between  their  headlamls,  or  even 
to  narrower  ones;  while  the  |)resent  treaty  has  adopted  the  more  moilern  rule  of  ttie 
10  miles  opening  as  a  practical  ami  not  injurious  solution  of  this  whole  disimte  con- 
ceriiiiij);  bays  and  headlands. 

Therefore,  under  the  eoiiveiilion  of  I.-^IH  the  question  arises  in  every  ease:  What  is 
a  jurisdictional  bay,  that  is,  a  British  l>ay,  or,  in  otlier  w(U'ds,  a  bay  which  was  then 
a  part  "of  His  Rritannie  Mnjosty's  dominions  in  America?"  This  having  been  ascer- 
tained, another  question  avLses,  whether  any  hay  which  was  not  jurisdictional  iu 
A.  D.  181s  has  since  become  so  inclosed  by  the  growth  of  po\)ulaiion  tliat,  on  the 
principles  by  which  we  claim  as  our  exclusive  waters  Chesapeake  and  Delaware 
bays  and  Long  Island  Sound,  we  may  projierly  concede  it  to  Great  Britain  ai.'cording 
to  its  existing  circumstances,  as  an  indiicuinent  to  a  suital)le  and  just  arrangement 
of  all  questions  of  delimitation  i?  With  refereuuo  to  this  question,  and  indeed  with 
reference  to  all  this  branch  of  the  case,  the  United  States,  with  its  extensive  coasts, 
its  numerous  bays,  its  raitidly  increasing  population  and  commercial  interests  can 
not  wisely  jiermit  a  narrow  precedent. 

The  bay  of  Clialeiir,  the  shores  of  which  in  A.  D.  1818  were  uninhabited,  has  by  the 
advance  of  population  becouie  a  part  of  the  adjacent  territory  for  all  jurisdictional 
purposes ;  and  it  has  ceased  to  be  of  special  value  to  our  vessels  except  for  shelter  or  sup- 
plies. The  siime  observations  apply  with  greater  force  to  the  bay  of  Miraniichi.  The 
bays  of  Egmont  and  St  Ann's  are  hardly  more  than  mt;re  sinuosities  of  the  coast ;  but 
they  and  the  excluded  jiarts  of  the  Newfoundland  bays  are  of  no  value  to  our  vessels 
for  lisliing.  It  is  not  unniasonable  to  grant  the  release  of  all  of  them,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  as  to  all  other  waters  we  remove  long  standing  disputes.  It  is  not  to  he  over- 
looked that  all  these  bays  have  long  been  claimed  by  Great  Britain  as  of  right. 


142 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


At  thn  iiioiiMm  of  all  the  hayn  dcsifjiiati'd  in  tln^  tn^iity  l).v  iiaint',  tin-  roiirth  aitiolo 
makes  Hpccial  lincH  ofdeliniitatioii.  Tlicni  seems  to  Ut*  an  imi>ri's^,i()ii  with  sonic  lluit 
the  exclusion  is  ;{ iiiilfs  Hcawiud  tlicrflioin;  hnt  this  Is  plainly  fironcoiis.  Eaih  of 
these  lines  is  run  from  one  powerful  light  to  another,  except  one  tenniuus  lit  Cape 
Smoke,  whieh  is  a  promontory  over  700  feet  in  height.  The  external  peripheries  of 
visiliility  of  these  liglits  overlap  t^ac.h  othia*  very  eonsiderahly  on  each  of  these  lines. 
HO  that  for  our  vessels  danger  is  not  whcrt*  bays  liave  heen  Hpeeilically  rcdeased.  This 
will  be  found  at  the  H-niile  limit  from  the  open  shore,  where  it  always  has  lieen. 
There  is,  howevc^r,  eonfusion  about  this,  and  some  debit  the  treaty, jiisl  negoiialed 
with  the  inevitalde  hazards  eonseiiucntial  on  the  prinei])les  of  that  of  IHIH.  If  the 
coniinissiou  of  delimitation  is  appointed  as  the  treaty  i)rovidc8,  this  commission,  of 
course,  will,  as  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  l-'ish  foresaw,  diminish  the  danger  on  the  open 
coast,  by  giving  on  the  charts  which  it  prepares  bearings  of  lights  and  other  marked 
points;  ao  that  vessels  by  the  aid  of  these  bearings  will  be  able  to  ])rotect  themselves 
in  some  degree.  Nevertheless,  there  are  the  nights  an<l  thick  weather,  but  the  con- 
sequences of  these  are  inherent  in  the  i)rinciples  of  the  convention  of  IS18,  and  will 
be  diminished  and  n(»t  enlarged  by  the  practical  workings  of  the  present  treaty. 

In  the  case  of  tli«^  irdnhhif/fim,  Mr.  Hates  referred  to  the  treaty  beiween  France 
and  Great  Britain  of  IHAd,  exciuding  from  the  common  right  of  tishing  all  bays,  the 
mouths  of  which  did  not  exceed  10  miles  in  width,  and  indorsed  this  as  a  proper  limit. 
In  the  treaty  between  France  and  Great  Britain  of  m()7  the  same  limit  was  adopted; 
and  it  was  approved  by  the  common  Judgment  of  Great  Britain,  the  (Jeruian  Emjiire, 
Belgium,  Dennnirk,  France,  and  the  Netherlands,  in  the  treaty  concerning  the  North 
Sea  tisheries,  signed  at  The  Hague  May  0,  A.  D.  18&2.  With  the  weight  of  interna- 
tional consensus  in  its  favor,  and  In  view  of  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  aid 
precedents  which  will  enable  us  to  afford  proper  protection  to  our  extensive  coasts, 
and  admitting  the  necessity  of  finding  some  practical  method  of  delimitation,  this 
rule  seems  on  the  whole  convenient,  wise,  and  not  unjust.  Moreover,  considering  the 
inability  of  our  mackerel  vessels,  substantially  all  of  which  use  the  purse  seine  to  fish 
in  shallow  waters  along  the  coast,  and  that  very  few  American  fishermen,  i)erliaps 
none,  in  the  pursuit  of  halibut  or  cod  desire  to  fi.sh  there,  it  is  impossible  to  believe 
that  this  rule  surrenders  anything  of  essential  value  to  us. 

It  is  fair  to  add  that  the  ten-milo  rule  was  app.irently  not  congenial  to  Canada.  In 
the  ]>roposals  made  to  Great  Bi'itain  in  the  autumn  of  A.  D.  \f*8ii,  Mr.  Bayard,  after 
reciting  substantially  the  suggestions  made  by  Mr.  Seward,  and  elaborating  them, 
offered  this  rule;  bvit  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  in  his  reply  of  March  24,  H87,  com- 
mented that  this  "  would  involve  a  surrender  of  fishing  rights,  which  have  always 
been  regarded  as  the  exclusive  property  of  Canada." 

The  specific  delimitations  at  several  smaller  bays  will,  on  examination,  be  found  to 
be  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  the  United  States  as  to  the  proper  results  of  the  gen- 
eral rules  of  18Id.  On  the  whtde,  by  this  part  of  the  treaty  a  long  and  troublesome 
dispute  affords  promise  of  being  ended  without  either  party  giving  up  anything  of 
value. 

Next,  the  treaty  touches  the  matters  which  have  involved  our  fishing  vessels  in 
their  most  serious  troubles,  fully  covering  reports  to  custom-houses,  fees,  and  other 
charges,  cases  of  disaster  and  distress,  and  incidental  supplies  such  as  merchant  ves- 
sels buy.  It  is  of  course  impossible  to  anticipate  all  the  questions  which  may  arise 
as  between  coterunnous  peoples,  even  with  the  most  caieful  phraseology;  ai.d  there 
are  some  matters  w^ich  can  not  be  confined  within  fixed  tenns  without  limiting  the 
rights  of  one  i)arty  or  the  other  to  an  extent  to  which  neither  could  be  expected  to 
submit.  Among  these  is  that  discretion  which  must  be  exercised  on  the  one  side  by 
the  "skipper"  who  runs  in  for  shelter  in  deciding  whether  or  not  it  is  prudent  to  ])nt 
to  sea,  and  on  the  other  side  by  the  revenue  authorities  in  deternuning  whether  fir 
not  the  ves.sel  is  hovering  or  loitering  unlawfully  within  the  waters  of  Canada.  Such 
matters  must  in  the  main  be  disposed  of  satisfactorily  by  the  practical  operation  of 


THE    FISH KK- IKS    TREATY. 


143 


ic  Unit 
iifh  I'l' 
1  Capii 
ipios  of 
3  liin's, 
This 

S   lUM'll. 

ol  iuii'il 
If  the 
sioii,  of 
lie  ()|n'ii 
niurkcd 
nisolvt'R 
th(!  con- 
md  will 
ity. 
1  Franco 


ays, 


the 


loi  limit, 
vrtoptotl: 

Empire, 
lio  Nortl) 

intoriia- 
1^8  to  aid 
ve  coasts, 
tlon,  this 
lorinsf  the 
mo  totish 
,  perhaps 

()  believe 

liada.  In 
lird,  after 

nj;  them. 
|-:M7,  eoiii- 

0  tiUviiys 

found  to 

If  the  ^eii- 

lublesomo 

vtliing  of 

Ivessel.s  in 
Ind  other 
•hant  ves- 
liiiay  arise 
liU.d  there 
liitinif  the 
tpectcd  to 
1)0  side  by 
Jilt  to  put 
J-hetlier  or 
Ibi.     Such 
L>ration  of 


what  is  expressed  and  bv  (ho  litnitiitioii  imposed  in  this  article  which   will  iiuinedi- 
ately  lie  considered. 

The  treaty  next  seeks  to  alleviate  llii>  hardsliips  of  the  Ie;^,il  proeeediii;^s  whicili 
various  statutes  of  the  province  and  tlie  l)oniiiiiiin  liave  iinpo><ed  on  I'orei^n  vessels. 
Those  statutes  extended  to  lishiny  vessids  systems  ol'  proecdnio  wiiich  are  with  less 
injustice  applied  lo  merchant  men.  The  latter  come  vdliintarily  into  port,  and  an^ 
ordiiuirily  furnished  eithci' with  (credit  oi-  cash  tlironcli  theii'  consi;.;uees,  enabling' 
then*  to  protect  theuiselvi-s  in  ense  of  111  i^fation.  l'''ishinijj  vessels,  however,  especiiilly 
those  put  till";' into  Strang;)'  waters  ini-reiy  for  siieller,  iiave  iiosncii  aids  and  fre(|uenlly 
havtr  with  ihcin  very  little  cash;  and  the  result  has  heen  that  the  forms  of  proceed- 
ings, which  might  noi  be  burd(Misoum  for  luerchantnl^n,  have,  with  reference  to  fish- 
ing vt'ssels,  olistrncted  the  course  of  Justice.  'I'hiough  the  iuterventiiui  of  counsel 
employed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  tor  oliservin;;'  the  trials  of  flui  Darid  J.  A<l<tiiiH 
and  tlie  Ella  M.  DoKijIitii,  there  have  been  received  practical  hissonsin  the  dillicnlties 
surrounding  lishing  vessids  under  the  statutcia  ami  proceedings  of  the  courts  of  the 
Dominion.  As  already  exidained,  these  had  bvvw  ulliiwed  to  tlirive  so  long  without 
any  successful  cdlbrt  on  the  pari  of  the  I'nited  States  to  pi'event  their  growth,  tiiat 
they  had  bei-ouie  ton  deeply  rooted  in  the  general  mass  of  Canadian  legislation  to 
permit  their  being  entindy  drawn  out.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  so  far  as  this 
artich^  nniy  fail  to  remove  all  these  ditliculties  detail  b.\  detail,  its  limitation  of  pen- 
alties, except  for  illegal  fishing  or  preparation  therefor,  will  do  very  much  to  pr<!vent 
injustice  under  any  eirciunstances ;  vhili!  as  to  vessels  [loacdiing,  it  is  tor  the  interest 
of  eat.'h  (Joverninent  that  they  shall  be  restrained  liy  seviTc  iniiiishmeuts. 

To  follow  out  the  matter  more  in  <leMil':  A  fishing  vessel  is  seizi^d  in  the  Hay  of 
St,  Ann's,  or  up  in  the  tJulfof  St.  Lawrence.  Under  existing  statutes,  first  of  all, 
and  before  she  can  claim  a  trial  or  talic  testimony  or  other  st<^ps  towards  a  trial, 
she  is  required  to  furnish  security  for  costs  not  exceeding  $iIO.  The  practical  expe- 
rience is  that  fishing  vt;ssels  taken  into  strange  poits  are  rarely  provided  with  funds 
or  credit,  and  therelbre  they  are  compelled  to  conmiunicuite  with  tluMr  owners  for  as- 
sistance, and  by  reason  of  the  consequent  delay  are  unable  to  take  even  the  preliuii- 
uary  steps  before  the  sharesnien  scatter  and  the  witnesses  are  lost;  because  sliarea- 
uieu,  not  being  tirdinarily  on  wages,  can  not  be  held  to  a  vessel  moored  to  a  pier. 
This  ])rovision  of  the  Canadian  law  is  not  singular;  in  our  own  admiralty  courts  no 
person  can  ordinarly  claim  a  fishing  vessel,  or  whatever  vessel  she  may  be,  without 
furnishing  like  security.  Under  the  treaty  this  disajipears;  and  in  practice  this  re- 
lief will  be  found  to  be  of  great  benetit  to  our  tishermen. 

Next,  the  courts  into  which  all  the  cases  of  these  lishing  vessels  have  been  brought 
are  not  provincial,  but;  are  Imperial  vice-admiralty  courts,  cstabHslied  and  governed 
by  the  uniform  rules  of  the  Imiierial  statutti,  although  presided  over  by  a  local  Judge 
designated  for  that  jmrpose.  Asa  consequeuce,  .all  the  parai>liernalia  and  fees  of  Im- 
perial c(nirts  are  iiict,  and  the  progress  of  the  trial  re<piires  the  early  disbursement  of 
large  sums  of  UKUiey  cominou  in  all  of  them,  but  unknown  in  our  own  and  in  the  pro- 
vincial courts.  These  are  necessarily  so  large  that  our  consular  correspondence  shows 
the  burden  of  securing  the  costs  and  advancing  fees  was  alom*  sufficient  in  some  in- 
stances to  compel  owners  to  ai)and(ni  the  defense  of  vessels  of  moderate  value.  The 
statutes  to  which  we  have  already  referred,  moreover,  stijmlated  that  no  vessel  should 
bo  released  on  iiail  without  the  consent  of  the  stdziiig  ollicer;  and,  although  it  must 
be  admitted  that  in  practice  this  has  not  yet  been  found  to  create  dfliciilty,  it  is 
annulled  by  the  treaty.  While  it  is  iinpossil)le  to  anticipate  or  prevent  all  causes  of 
legal  delays  and  expenditures,  yet  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  for  denying  that 
this  thirteenth  article  will  essentially  moderate  these  enninerated  rigors. 

The  punishment  for  illegally  lishing  in  the  prohibited  waters  has  always  been  for- 
feiture of  the  vessel  and  the  cargo  aboard  at  the  time  of  seizure.  It  was  not  possible, 
nor  was  it  for  the  interests  of  either  country,  to  demand  that  the  penalty  imiiosisd  ou 
actual   poachers  should  uot  be  severe ;  but  this  article  jirovides  that  only  the  cargo. 


144 


TIIK    FISIIKKIKH    TUEATY. 


aboard  at  tin-  tiiiio  of  tluiotViMiso  can  !)«  f'orfcittMl,  nml  tlic  [(roviiiciaN  can  not  licliaclc 
mifil  a  vosnhI  Iiiih  tuknii  a  lull  car;;",  ami  tlu'ii  Hsvocp  iti  ilin  (saniiiiK^  i>f  tin-  fiitiro 
trip  toraii  ollt'iisccomiiiittcd  |i<'rlia|is  at  itn  inci'iitiuii.  Mnn-ovcr,  the  articlf  pi'dvidt's 
tin'  penalty  uliall  not  bo  onlori'ud  nnlil  rovimvi'd  l»y  the  ^iivci'nor-;^t'M('ial  in  council, 
jjivinj"  Hpa«'0  for  tho  pasHiii);  away  of  toinporary  oxcitornent  and  for  a  calm  coiiHider- 
atiori  of  all  niili>;aliii>;  ciicninMtaiKics.  Also,  fiom  the  pansa^e  of  llie  statnt*^  of  1"'11» 
the  penalty  thv  illegally  "prepaiinn'  to  lish  "  ha.s  been  forfeitnre.  This  has  at  times 
been  construed  to  extend  not  only  to  prepariiiji-  to  tisli  illegally,  bnt  also  to  a  prepa- 
ration witliiii  the  Dominion  waters  for  tishinj^  elsewhere.  The  ./.  //.  XicktrsnH,  alrciidy 
referred  to,  was  foiteited  in  A.  D.  If'TO  on  this  principle,  withont  any  s[)e(itic  itrotcst 
from  th(!  Unit(Ml  States  or  any  snlisiMpieiit  reclamation. 

If  the  ]tleiiipotentiaries  had  been  workinj^  new  Ki'»"iiid,  in  view  of  the  i  ite- 

ness  of  the  words  and  of  the  fact  that  i>repaiatioii  is  ordinarily  nccepteil  as  ..i  lower 
grade  than  actnal  aceoiriplishnient,  it  may  lie  that  the  penally  of  foifeit;iro  nmler 
any  circnmstanceH  for  this  offense  would  have  been  Hurreiidered ;  Imt  a  statute 
wliiidi  has  stood  for  nearly  seventy  years  without  sncccissfnl  objection  can  not  easily 
be  wholly  ov<',rthriiw'ii.  The  treaty,  liowc^ver,  clearly  eliminates  every  priiicii)le  on 
which  were  based  the  forfeiture  of  the./.  //.  Xivli'crson  niul  the  itroceediiiffs  aj;ainsb 
the  ./<?(/»!«  and  the  Doiirihlij  ,  and  also,  taUin;;-  into  coiisiderMtion  the  other  elements 
already  referred  to,  it  makes  forfeitnre  the  extreme  penalty,  bnt  diri-cts  t  hat  tlie 
pnnishmeiit  shall  !»»  lixed  by  the  court  not  lixeetMlinjj;  the  maxiinmn,  so  that,  if  cii- 
cumstances  justify  in  any  case,  ii  may  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  In  lieu  of  all  the 
other  penallies  risinj;'  to  forfeiture,  imposed  by  the  Dominion  statutes  concerniiif;  the 
fisher'ns  for  technical  oflenses  and  othuises  known  and  unknown,  the  maximum  for 
all  such  will  \w  f<'.\  for  every  ton  of  the  boat  or  Viisstd  concerned.  Umler  the  i)r()- 
visions  of  this  treaty  the  KUa  M.  Doiif/h 1 1/,  cnw^ht  in  the  ice,  would  have  gone  free, 
and  the  DttridJ.  Adams,  whicli  ran  across  fnun  Etistport  intol)i>;by  basin  T  bait, 
if  she  had  ibiind  herself  snarled  in  the  iutricatiies  of  foroij^ti  statutes  and  1  i)ro- 

coodinjis,  had  the  f)]ttion  to  pay  $'.\  per  ton,  or  less  than  •'!t>200 — in  other  won  Uian 

tlie  amounts  heretofore  rcipiired  as  security  for  costs  and  to  pay  expenses  of  defense 
ill  the  vic(!-admiralty  court  and  go  free — or  she  could  have  demanded  a  sninniary 
and  inexpensive  trial  at  the  place  of  detention. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  statntea  of  Canada  which  we  have  been  dis- 
cussing are  not  aimed  particularly  at  vessels  of  the  United  States,  but  include  all 
fjiuugn  fishing  vessels.  While  in  all  resiiecLs,  even  with  the  modifications  which  the 
thirteenth  article  imposes  ou  them,  they  are  notour  statutes,  and  therefore  not  what 
we  would  make  tliein,  yet  several  of  these  niodilications  are  concessions  from  prin- 
ciples and  i(rovisions  which  are  found  in  our  own  statutes,  and  cfuicessions  which  we 
onr>olves  would  not  willingly  make  in  behalf  of  foreign  vessels.  Ou  the  whole,  a 
careful  examiuation  of  this  section,  taken  in  the  light  of  the  ordinary  methods  of 
criminal  proceedirigs  wherever  the  common  law  exists,  will  show  a  present  desire  ou 
the  ])art  of  (Ireat  Britain  and  Canada  to  remove  Just  cause  of  offense,  and  to  cultivate 
the  friemlship  of  the  United  States;  and  take  it  by  and  large,  the  net  result  must  bo 
a  modicum  of  those  evils  and  inisforrunes,  through  legal  proceedings,  whioh  inevit- 
ably await  strange  A'essels  in  foreign  ports. 

Cniicerning  the  (ifteenth  article,  further  reference  to  the  protocol  of  May  4,  1871,  of 
the  joint  commissioners  who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  Washington  will  show,  as  al- 
ready explained,  that  the  American  commissioners  preferred  asittlement  of  the  fishery 
questions  ''on  a  com)»rehensive  basis."  After  setting  out  other  propositions,  pro  and 
con,  which  were  not  agreed  to,  the  protocol  i)roceeds  as  follows: 

"The  subject  of  the  fisheries  was  further  discussed  at  the  conferences  held  on  the 
20th,  Siiid,  and  25th  of  March.  The  American  commissioners  stated  that,  if  the  value 
of  the  inshore  lisheries  could  be  ascertained,  the  United  States  might  prefer  to  pur- 
chase for  a  sum  of  money  the  right  to  enjoy  in  perpetuity  the  use  of  those  inshore 
fisheries  iu  common  with  British  fishermen." 


THK    FISHKHIKS    TUKATY. 


145 


the  fiitin> 
'  provitloH 
II  couMcil, 
1  coMisidi'i'- 
ito  of  in  lit 

IH  lit  tilllCH 
to  il  pit'l*"- 
III,  iilri'iidy 
illc  protost 

i  iti'- 

iH  «.t  lower 
itiiro  uiitler 
;  a  statute 

I  not  oiisily 
rinciplf  oM 
ii;i«  iij;ainsb 
cr  olt'iiifiitH 
I'ts  thixt  tlio 
that,  if  cir- 

II  of  all  tlio 
iccniiii!:;  tli« 
aximiiiu  for 
ilci-  tlif  l>vo- 
0  j;ono  free, 
iHiii  '^rbait, 
1(1  I  l)i't»- 
hi  Miau 

S    of   (loffllHO 

a  Hiiinniiiry 

0  boon  ilia- 
incliule  all 
iH  wliicli  tlio 
)ro  not  what 
from  prin- 
)nH  which  we 
the  whole,  a 
nethoUs  of 
lit  desire  ou 
to  cultivate 
Hult  inuHt  ho 
hioh  inovit- 

[ay4,  1871,  of 
8lu)W,  as  al- 
of  the  tishery 
iione,  pro  and 

s  hold  on  the 
,  if  the  valne 
prefer  to  pur- 
those  inshore 


>•  >' 


Our  conmii.ssioin'rM  iiftorwiudM  nniiu'd  !5>l,nn().()(l()  un  tho  niiiii  they  wcr«i  iiropiircd  to 
olVcr.  'I'jio  Itiitish  LoiiiiniHsiouers  roplicd  that  lliis  olVor  was  inii(l*'(|iiato,  iiiid  made 
Homo  other  ohjoot  ions  to  it.  Suhsc(|uent!y  ourconimiHNioiierHprniioHedaHan  eipiivalont 
for  tilt!  iiiHhore  liHiierics  lliat  coal,  nalt,  and  IIhIi  should  he  recipioeally  admitted  free  at 
once  and  liimlier  after  the  1st  of  .Inly,  A.  1>.  Ir-TI.  <>n  the  ITth  of  April  the  IJritiNh 
coniniiHHionerH  replied  that  they  re;;ardetl  this  latter  otler  as  inadequate.  Thereupon 
our  commiHsioners  witlidiew  it,  and  the  equivalents  were  fiuully  ncgotialed,  as  found 
in  the  treaty. 

In  ftaminji  the  prehent  (•oii\ention  this  principle  of  negotiation  seenis  to  haveheeu 
held  hy  the  I'nited  States  not  admit»sihle,  hut  it  ou>;ht  not  hi^  denie<l,  if  to  purchaKO 
halt  ami  in  other  ways  make  the  sliores  of  danada  ami  Nesvfoumllaml  the  haso  of  our 
tishiii;;  operaliom;  have  a  pecuniary  or  ju'operty  value  to  the  I'nited  States,  an  equiv- 
alent therelor  niny  Justly  lie  demanded  hy  (Jreat  Ihitain.  In  any  harjjainin;^  for  tin* 
same,  however,  all  the  parties  concerned  should  stand  free  and  on  equal  footiujj. 
Great  IJritaiu  in  this  article  freely  states  wliat  slu;  is  willing;  to  accei>t,  and  if  the  con- 
vention is  ratilied,  C'on;,'ress  may  freely  adopt  its  terms  if  it  deenis  it  for  the  interest 
of  thi»  eoiinlry  so  to  «lo. 

The  ohjtietions  lhat|,tlie  treaty  does  not  secure  privilejjes  for  halt,  shippin<;  men  and 
transshipping;  tish  are  not  considered  here,  as  they  have  heen  fully  discussed  elsewhere. 
Also  discussion  of  the  other  ill-founded  ohjection  that  the  treaty  j;ivcs  us  nothinj? 
worth  purchasin;!;  is  (nnitte<l,  hecause  it  makes  no  attempt  topiirchfise  anything.  It 
gives  no  consideratioD  whatever  for  the  henelits  which  we  receive  under  it. 

Much  has  heen  said  hy  the  op]ioiicntH  of  the  treaty  concerniii};-  the  recii>rocal  ar- 
rangement of  \.  D.  1H;{();  iind  indeed  some  of  them  aiqiarently  siipi)Ose  a  treaty  with 
Great  Hritain  was  then  made.  The  most  couveniei  i  way  of  understanding  that  ar- 
rangement is  to  turn  to  Jackson's  ]iroclamatioii  of  May 'iU,  A.  1).  IH30,  iiy  which  it 
was  brought  to  its  completion;  and  its  entire  practical  ttfect  is  mmlo  clear  from  the 
circular  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  In  tho  collectors  of  customs  of  October  G,  A.D. 
1^150,  and  hy  the  order  in  council  of  NovoiuIkt  .')  of  the  samti  year. 

While  this  marked  a  long  step  forward  i  reciprocal  arrangements  with  the  neigh- 
boring provinces,  so  that  it  atVorded  tho  Sci  ict.iry  of  State,  Mr.  IJayard,  very  just  ami 
persuasive  arguments  in  favor  of  the  most  liberal  treatment  by  Canada  of  our  tishing 
vessels,  yet  its  very  letter,  as  well  as  its  spirit,  related  exclusively  to  vessels  engaged 
in  commerco  and  to  merchandise  carried  from  tho  ports  of  one  country  to  tho  ])ort3 
of  another.  Not  only  did  it  not  contemplate  the  purchase  of  fishing  supplies  to  be 
used  on  the  ocean  and  other  facilities  for  fishing  vessels,  but  its  jihraseology  clearly 
excluded  any  such  i)nrpose.  Are  we  any  more  entitled  to  demand  under  it  as  a  righ; 
reciprocity  in  matters  of  this  sort  than  Great  Britain  or  Qinada  can  demand  under  it 
reciprocity  in  the  coasting  trade  or  in  the  registering  of  vessels  ?  And  is  there  any- 
thing either  in  this  reciprocal  arrangement  or  in  any  other  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  or  Canada  which  renders  the  refusal  to  our  fishermen  of 
the  special  benefits  of  the  near  locality  of  Nova  Scotia  to  the  fishing  grounds  more 
nnfriendly,  in  that  sense  which  justifies  retaliation,  than  our  refusal  to  permit  Brit- 
ish, including  Canadian,  vessels  to  enter  our  coasting  trade,  while  ours  freely  engage 
iu  the  larger  coasting  trade  of  the  British  Empire;  or  than  the  refusal  to  permit  the 
sale  by  the  British,  Including  the  Canadians,  of  their  vessels  to  our  citizens  with  reg- 
istration, while  we  may  freely  sell  and  register  our  vessels  iu  any  part  of  the  Britisli 
possessions?  There  is  a  wide  gulf  between  this  class  of  privileges  which  nations 
grant  or  refuse  in  accordance  with  their  own  broad  or  narrow  views  of  their  own  in- 
terests and  that  class  which  affects  the  comfort  of  strangers  and  their  property  in 
foreign  ports.     All  the  latter  tho  treaty  just  negotiated  secures  and  perpetuates. 

In  the  official  pamphlet  of  the  National  Fishery  Association  of  March  1,  1»88,  there 
is  given  on  the  twelfth  page  the  following  alternative  for  this  treaty  : 

"It  may  be  a.sked  how  shall  we  deal  with  this  matter?    What  can  be  done  to  set- 
tle the  tishery  question  between  the  British  North  American  provinces  and  the  United 
S.  Mis.  109 10 


146 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


States?  This  can  be  clone,  ami  it  has  the  sauctiou  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress. 
Wipeont  all  legislative  commercial  arrangements  and  let  us  go  back  where  we  were, 
80  far  as  commercial  intercourse  with  the  British  provinces  is  concerned,  wlien  the 
treaty  of  IHld  was  made.  In  other  words,  declare  non-intercourse!  Put  Canada  in 
the  same  relation  to  the  United  States  as  she  was  seventy  years  ago !  Then  our  fish- 
ermen would  have  the  same  rights  they  have  now  under  the  treaty  of  1818,  and  we 
should  then  be  in  a  position  to  say  to  her;  'Are  you  willing  this  should  continue,  or 
do  you  prefer  to  deal  with  us  on  a  fair  basis  and  give  to  all  our  vessels,  as  we  are 
willing  to  give  to  yours,  full  commercial I'ights  in  your  ports?'"' 

It  is  not  proposed  here  to  dwell  on  tliis  alternative  nor  to  discuss  the  propriety  of 
the  assumption  of  a  representative  character  by  the  National  Fishery  Association. 
But  in  the  event  the  treaty  is  rejected,  if  the  President  heeds  this  demand,  as  perhaps 
•aider  the  law  he  may,  neither  the  association,  nor  whomsoever  it  represeuts,  if  any- 
body, nor,  more  particularly,  that  part  of  the  community  which  now  fails  to  rise  up 
against  its  pretensions,  can  justly  complain. 

The  fishing  interests  of  New  England  welcomed  with  great  expectations  the  expi- 
ration of  the  treaty  of  1871,  wliich  came  about  in  June,  A.  D.  1885;  but  the  result 
has  shown  how  little  the  prosperity  of  these  interests  can  rely  on  political  events. 
The  seasons  of  IsSG  and  1887,  so  far  as  the  mackerel  catch  was  coucerned,  were  disas- 
trous through  natural  causes,  both  for  our  own  Heets  and  for  those  of  Nova  Scotia, 
though  less  for  the  latter  than  for  the  former.  Although  the  catch  for  these  tw^o 
seasons  was  only  one-third  of  the  catch  for  1882  and  1883,  yet  the  prices  made  no  cor- 
responding advance  ;  so  that  the  money  aggregate  for  the  two  latter  seasons,  includ- 
ing all  grades  of  mackerel,  could  not  have  been  much  in  excess  of  one-third  of  that 
)c  :•  the  two  earlier  seasons  named.  With  reference  to  cod  and  other  ground  fish,  there 
was  a  considerable  diminution  in  the  catch  for  the  ses^ons  oflSSG  and  1887,  with  an 
extremely  low  market  in  1886  and  a  somewhat  improved  market  in  1887,  the  net  money 
yield  for  each  being  comparatively  small.  In  neither  branch  of  the  fisheries,  how- 
ever, were  these  evils  caused  by  Canadian  complications.  This  is  well  understood 
with  reference  to  mackerel,  and  becomes  entirely  plain  as  to  cod  when  the  fact  is  con- 
sidered that  in  A.  D.  188:?,  A.  D.  1884,  and  A.  D.  1885,  the  catch  on  the  New  England 
shores  and  George's  Banks  exceeded  that  on  the  Grand  and  Western  Banks,  while  the 
reverse  occurred  in  A.  D.  1886  and  A.  D.  1887.  Before  the  Senate  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations  in  A.  D.  188(5,  Sylvester  Cunningham,  of  Gloucester,  testified  that — 

"The  price  of  fish  is  so  low  now  that,  if  we  shftuld  allow  Canadian  fish  to  come  in 
free,  our  vessels  would  not  sail.     The  price  is  very  low." 

Mr.  O.  B.  Whitten,  vice-president  of  the  Fishery  Union,  also  testified  before  the 
same  committee,  October  6,  188G,  as  follows: 

"Q.  Have  you  ever  noticed  that  the  duty  has  increased  or  that  the  absence  of  duty 
has  decreased  the  price  of  fish  to  the  consumer  during  the  last  fifteen  years  If 

'•A.  I  do  not  know  that  the  duty  has  anything  to  do  with  it  whatever.  In  fact,  it 
is  strange  that  salt  fish  were  never  so  low  as  they  are  at  the  present  time  with  the  duly  on." 

Mr.  L.  R.  Campbell,  deputy  commissioner  of  labor  for  the  State  of  Maine,  in  an  in- 
terview with  a  reporter  of  the  Kennebec  Journal,  on  the  17th  day  of  November  last, 
said : 

"The  fishermen  are  in  a  worse  condition  to-day  than  they  have  been  for  a  number 
of  years,  for  the  reason  that  they  had  two  bad  seasons  in  succession." 

Indeed,  the  de^jressed  condition  of  the  fisheries  for  the  last  two  years  is  too  noto- 
rious to  need  evidencing,  though  the  above  explanation  of  its  causes  seem  necess.'iry. 

In  this  state  of  financial  losses  and  anxiety  the  fishing  interests  are,  of  course,  not 
prone  to  welcome  auythiu;!  which  Avill  not,  in  their  opinion,  give  them  immediate 
financial  relief;  yet  the  writer  speaks  from  a  considerable  personal  knowledge  when 
he  says  that  whomsoever  may  have  part  in  advancing  the  wholesome  and  beneficent 
treaty  just  negotiated  can  without  trepidation  trust  himself  in  the  hands  of  the  fish- 


THE    FISHERIES    TREATY. 


\x  Cougress. 
re  we  were, 
1,  wlicn  tlio 
b  Canada  in 
len  onr  fisli- 
818,  and  we 
jontinue,  or 
,  as  we  are 

)ropriety  of 
Association, 
as  perhaps 
ints,  if  any- 
s  to  rise  up 

38  the  expi- 
t  the  result 
ical  events, 
were  disas- 
fova  Scotia, 
:  these  two 
>s»de  no  cor- 
3ns,  includ- 
lird  of  that 
i  fish,  there 
37,  with  an 
3  net  money 
eries,  how- 
nnderstood 
fact  is  con- 
!w  England 
s,  while  the 
itee  on  For- 
ed  that — 
I  to  come  in 

before  the 

nee  of  duty 
ral 

In  fact,  it 
lull/  on." 
le,  in  an  in- 
emher  last, 

ir  a  number 

is  too  noto- 
1  necess.ary. 
course,  not 

immediate 
ledge  when 

beneficent 
of  the  fish- 


147 


:^::^';^o  r r^r"^"^  '-  -  '-''  -^  -  *^«  -^-  aecond-thought 

ereuLl^l^oTeltiror^^^^^^         '''Z\T  '^^  ^^^^^^^^  ^^  ^^^  -^  «-!  --.- 
Lumor  which  would  flow  therefomL^^^^  ^"'^  *'-  ««-^ 

past  ill-will  and  its  consequent  miscbleft  '  '''"  recollections  of  the 

Portland,  Me.,  jjiril  16,  1888.  William  L.  Putxam. 


f 


